No.12779
Usually I'm for freedom but I'm sorry but I don't believe in religious freedom. The level of irrationality that religion fosters should not be tolerated for a society to call itself sane. Whoever cannot back up their beliefs with evidence and is unable to have themselves reasoned out of the position they didn't reason themselves into should be exiled out in the ocean on a dingy. Let alone allow religious institution to litter the minds of people. Religion has a detrimental effect such as impeding scientific progress (stem cell research bans, etc) and induces horrible behaviors just because some imaginary skywizard said so (Charlie Hebdo, etc) just to name a couple of societal problems that arise with allowing religion to exist. I'd gladly go through a short period of religious cleansing where my freedoms are restricted temporarily to solve this age old problem.
No.12783
>Usually I'm for freedom but I'm sorry but I don't believe in religious freedom. The level of irrationality that religion fosters should not be tolerated
As an atheist that is happy to call out religious bullshit: you are a faggot.
No.12786
>>12783
Nah, I'm actually trying to solve the problem while you let it persist. You think calling them will make a lick of a difference after years of religious indoctrination? HAahhahah, these people are beyond reasoning.
No.12788
>not allowing religious faggots to spout their shit
>destroying all that comedy gold
I bet you're fun at parties.
No.12790
>>12788
It's all funny until you realize these people actually influence the world we live in.
No.12791
>>12790
In lolbertarianland, no religious group could influence the government to try to censor you.
No.12792
>>12791
But they can still blow themselves up in front of me.
No.12796
>>12792
You see, that's a much better point. Albeit that only extends to mudslimes and the occasional christard abortion clinic combing.
To which I retort, terrorism and other violent acts become a lot less common when a society is well armed. No one's gonna try to shoot up a place when Hank McFreedomlover (and most other people) have a rifle on him.
Not to mention terrorism can be committed by non-religious ideologues (commies, skinheads, anarchists, etc.), so I don't see why you also don't support banning them too.
No.12797
>>12796
It's not just about violence, religion poisons the minds of people and in so doing cripples society's ability to develop scientifically and therefore technologically. If we were all high IQ atheists we'd be legitimately progressing, opposed to PC progress, at a much faster rate.
Commie, capitalist and skinhead minds are poisoned too but to a much lesser extent, they at least don't invoke some mystical skymagician to justify their nonsense.
No.12798
>>12797
Though if we were all high IQ we'd be at 100, I meant high IQ relative to today's mean.
No.12800
>>12797
Let's assume you're right and atheists are objectively more intelligent.
With that, I think you may have it backwards. Religions don't make people have lower IQs, people with lower IQs are more attracted to religion.
No.12801
>>12800
That's not what I was getting at. Though you're right that religion appeals to the stupid rather than it lowering IQ. I only mentioned IQ because dumb atheists aren't really useful, though they have something figured out at least.
Religion however does cripple a person's ability to reason. A high IQ religious person will be mentally crippled by their religion.
Take the example of that child prodigy Jacob Barnette, really smart kid that he understood calculus at age 7 or some early age but he's wasting his time trying to debunk the Big Bang because it goes against the Bible. He could be working on a fusion reactor or something but instead is wasting his intelligence because of his religious indoctrination.
No.12802
>>12801
whoops sorry for saging, was left from previous post.
No.12808
>>12779
Hey yo, atheist here. You should consider not being an edgelord. We all hold irrational beliefs or do irrational things, and if you're for freedom, you should at least tolerate that. There is no qualitative difference in believing in the validity of the horoscope and believing in what a religion teaches you, so where do we draw the line between acceptable irrational behavior and bad, bad religion?
>>12797
>Dat city
>Dat technological progress
>Dem spaceships
>Dat lack of roads
Is this the future if we let ancapism win?
Anyway: You're showing a collectivist mindset here. People's lifes don't belong to you. You have no claim to how they live it, and you have no right to use force to make them more productive.
>Commie, capitalist and skinhead minds are poisoned too but to a much lesser extent, they at least don't invoke some mystical skymagician to justify their nonsense.
I find the average christian a lot more reasonable than the average commie.
>>12801
>Take the example of that child prodigy Jacob Barnette, really smart kid that he understood calculus at age 7 or some early age but he's wasting his time trying to debunk the Big Bang because it goes against the Bible.
Barnett is literally an autist. What did you expect?
No.12818
>>12808
>We all hold irrational beliefs or do irrational things
But we are open to criticism and reflection, that's the difference. I accept your criticism of me toning down my edginess for example. Meanwhile a religiontard will not be open to your criticism of their holy book.
>There is no qualitative difference in believing in the validity of the horoscope and believing in what a religion teaches you
I'm not so sure. Both are positions of faith (dumbassery), however horoscopes are not treated with the same zeal and nor are children indoctrinated to believe in them. Horoscopes are just picked up by dumbasses so that they feel a false sense of security.
>You're showing a collectivist mindset here.
I'm just pointing out we'd be better off in the society I described. The fact is we rely on society and make up of that society determines how shitty or great it will be thus having huge impacts on our individual wellbeing. You cannot deny the reality that a civilization dedicated to knowledge and reason will do better than one based on faith and piety all else equal.
It's not collectivist at all, I'm thinking about myself here and in which society I'd be better off.
>People's lifes don't belong to you. You have no claim to how they live it, and you have no right to use force to make them more productive.
Nor would I want them to be around me. But I'm forced to live amongst them for the time being, seems like you're fine with them having that power over us strangely.
>I find the average christian a lot more reasonable than the average commie.
Well that's like your opinion, man.
>Barnett is literally an autist. What did you expect?
No.12832
>>12796
You forgot that terrorists don't just appear from nowhere.
There's no such thing as a terrorist who grew up in a well-to-do home and never witnessed the brutalities of war (either domestically or seeing your country do it to others).
No.12833
>>12801
>Religion only appeals to the stupid
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of saints who helped their communities, or to an Augustine monk.
No.12834
>>12833
Hundreds if not thousands*
No.12835
>>12832
>You forgot that terrorists don't just appear from nowhere.
Yeah they're spawned by violent dogma. Hence why we don't really see Tibetan Buddhist terrorists despite China's brutal occupation. Sparse violent uprisings against Chinese aggression at most. Nothing compared to Islam.
>There's no such thing as a terrorist who grew up in a well-to-do home
Wrong, most of the 9/11 hijackers were middle class with relatively comfortable upbringings.
>>12833
>le sometimes religious people do good things maymay
Overall this doesn't even begin to undo the damage of religion. Even of the peaceful ones like the Jains, their beliefs cripple their people's thinking into some spiritual shit.
No.12837
>>12818
>a religiontard will not be open to your criticism of their holy book
You're certainly not wrong, but this behavior is not exclusive to the religious. Things like confirmation bias and plain ol' plugging your ears and screaming LALALALA is something found in many ideologies.
>Nor would I want them to be around me
In lolbertarianland, you could have an atheist-only combine.
>seems like you're fine with them having that power over us strangely.
In lolbertarianland, they don't have any legal means of power over us. We are completely free to criticize them and they can't use the gubmint to enforce their bullshit.
>>12832
Wouldn't quite say that. I know this girl near my neighborhood who got arrested for trying to contact ISIS. Funny thing is her parents were pretty decent folk. They're not very happy with the situation.
I'm kebab too but ended up irreligious by the time I was in my teens. Me and the girl have relatively similar backgrounds (sans of course her folks being blue collar and mine were in pretty high positions) and yet we took completely different paths. I wonder what went wrong. Is it really simply a matter of upbringing and (while this may make me sound like a narcissistic faggot) hereditary intellect?
>>12833
To be fair, you can be benevolent and stupid.
>>12835
You know what anon, you may have a point. Being religious (especially to the point of dogma) or any other sort of ideologue does hold back your thinking. The thing is, people have the right to do so. Drug use holds back your thinking, but that doesn't justify illegalizing them. Hell, being lazy holds it back, but forcing everyone to work as hard as they can is downright Orwellian.
People often turn to religion because they're confused and/or are looking for solace (much like political ideologues are made up of angry and/or confused people who are upset with the status quo and want a simple explanation and solution to their own and the world's problems). A lot of people prefer not thinking too much. Not everyone is like you or me, and we just have to accept that. Don't get me wrong, if a zealot tries to force their dogma on you, fight back. But you can't force people to be a certain way.
No.12838
>>12837
I'm not trying to force anyone to work, friend. I'd ultimately like to to liberate their minds so that they can do more, so that they don't need to do these taxing mental gymnastics with reality that keep them from their full potential. But they are beyond reason when it comes to this. Religion is a mental cage.
And depending on frequency of use, drugs can expand your awareness of perception. Just the understanding of how fragile perception is. Coupled with some creative spurs of the moment. And unlike religion recreational drug use isn't a mental cage, addiction is of course.
No.12839
>>12835
Tibetan Buddhists were threatened with genocide. If you threaten anyone with genocide they'll shut the fuck up. Ask the Orthodox church under the militantly atheistic USSR.
I'll repeat myself:
>and never witnessed the brutalities of war (either domestically or seeing your country do it to others).
Don't tell me you're one of those idiots that doesn't realize the USA and France have been bombing the Middle East since the creation of Israel, are you?
>Overall this doesn't even begin to undo the damage of religion
I can pull up plenty of evidence of religion feeding and clothing the poor, taking stances to prevent wars, creating massive reform in the criminal justice system of ancient civilizations (the Russians considered decapitation to be a barbaric practice and communicated that to the Greeks), creating hospitals for the poor and downtrodden, creating education opportunities for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, etc. To quote the atheists though, burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Show me your evidence that the church has caused more harm than good. I want at the very minimum some examples- and preferably dates, quotes, and resources that were spread leading to this damage you like to claim. If it's caused as much damage as you like to claim it does, then there should be undeniable evidence out there.
No.12840
>>12838
>But they are beyond reason when it comes to this. Religion is a mental cage.
So spread the message. Look up street epistemology and try it on as many potential parents as you can, I'll run you through a bunch of the questions you can ask; this requires you to be open-minded, patient, and not-a-cunt (this is difficult for everyone including atheists
Scratch that, I'll ask these questions to our resident christian
No.12841
>>12839
Hey, you're a Christian, right? Would you mind answering a few questions about your God belief?
If yes, just to start off, could you rate your belief's strength, 0 being you're certain there is no supernatural force/karma/God, 100 you're certain your respective God belief is real.
No.12842
No.12843
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>12839
>Tibetan Buddhists were threatened with genocide.
No, it's to do with dogma:
Buddhism:
>"I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing."
>"All are afraid of the stick, all hold their lives dear. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others"
>"'As I am, so are these. As are these, so am I.' Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill."
>"Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat."
Islam:
> Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
> Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
> Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
>If you threaten anyone with genocide they'll shut the fuck up.
So why aren't we trying this with Muslims then?
>Don't tell me you're one of those idiots that doesn't realize the USA and France have been bombing the Middle East since the creation of Israel, are you?
You do realize Muslims have been violent before that right? Vid related.
>religion feeding and clothing the poor
For the price of conversion.
>taking stances to prevent wars
And starting plenty more.
>creating massive reform in the criminal justice system of ancient civilizations
Like stoning adulterers.
>creating hospitals for the poor and downtrodden
Mother Teresa's home for the sick was nothing but miserable. All that donation money went to her while the sick lay there dying in horrid conditions.
>creating education opportunities for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people
Hahaahahaah, creationism n the classroom how great.
>Show me your evidence that the church has caused more harm than good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Billions of people who believe in supernatural nonsense and have had their minds ruined by nonsense.
Meanwhile all you have is some shitty charity work.
No.12844
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>12839
Here's on Mother Teresa. So loving, so great. Man these Christcuck Charities are so great. LOL
No.12845
>>12839
>>12843
Hate to be the golden mean fallacy guy, but I think even if the sand religions never existed, similar things (both good and bad) would have happened. Either due to a new religion popping up or due to a secular form of brutality/charity.
No.12847
>>12844
And lets not forget the Catholic church telling HIV+ Africans not to wear condoms because it prevent the transfer of life.
No.12848
>>12845
I'm not saying everything would be peachy, just far more rational. And reason is what landed mankind on the moon, faith propelled some goatfuckers into the Twin Towers. It's more likely we would've been better off had religion been eliminated in modern times. Granted none of us would be alive since it takers all the exact events to unfold for us to be here. However going forward from this point, we can easily say society would do better eradicating religion.
No.12850
>>12841
>>12842
>tfw you're so rational christians are too scur to answer your questions
No.12851
since christian-sama won't answer my epistemological questions here they r
I'm going to tell you ahead of time, the point you need to make clear is faith is a SHITTY unreliable process. NO ONE USES FAITH (almost ever) to reach serious conclusions, outside of religion.
Questions:
-Could you specify the type of supernatural belief you have if any and rate the strength of your belief from 0 to 100, 0 being absolutely certain the deity does not exist and 100 is absolute confidence, could not be more sure?
-If you had to make a pie chart what portion of your belief would be faith/evidence/upbringing?
The vast majority of the time, you'll get
>muh personal experiences
-Okay, so you've had religious experiences and attributed it to your God. Let's say a clone of yourself was raised in India, and to belief in Ganesh and maybe a couple other gods, and they had similar religious experiences and attributed it to their God. How could you convince them that they had made a mistake in their attribution?
^ WHEN ASKING THE ABOVE QUESTION: Qualify it with "Yes, of course they have the right to believe as they will," if you don't the believer might well go off on a tangent on that shit and not answer the question.
-Could you use faith to reach any conclusion? (followup) If you can use faith to reach any conclusion, like that the Detroit Lions will win every superbowl for the next 50 years, is it really a reliable process?
-(If raised into a belief) So your parents taught you your religion; have your parents ever taught you something that was wrong, like for instance did they espouse a certain economic, social, or political idea that you strongly disagree with now? (followup) If they were wrong then, is it possible they were wrong in teaching you their religion?
I had one of these conversations with a Christian and they absolutely fucking refused to accept that faith was a process for forming a belief. He was treating it like an end unto itself and no matter how I tried to analogize how belief is a process for belief formation (just like reasoning or science can be processes for belief formation) he just continually contradicted me; if he refuses to recognize he's using a process for reaching a belief, there's no point in me saying "look this process is unreliable" because he won't even accept it was a process.
No.12853
>>12841
My apologies, I'm busy responding to the DemSoc in the other thread/creating a more comprehensive reply to his claims instead of back and forth banter.
I'll try to answer any questions you have.
If I had to rate my belief's strength, I'd rank it at about 20-35ish. I was an agnostic atheist for the last 13 years and only recently began to accept god into my life.
No.12855
>>12839
>USA and France have been bombing the Middle East since the creation of Israel
Because le Jews wanted their holy land back. Look religion at it again.
No.12856
>>12843
Buddhists are killing Muslims in other countries, so I don't think your dogma excuse is very useful. While I'll be the first to say that the Qu'ran is a hateful book, there are multiple sects of Islam, and the ones who believe in submission instead of revolution are not bad people (though you usually won't recognize them as durka durkas).
>So why aren't we trying this with Muslims then?
Because advocating genocide opens the slippery slope and gives you even less justification in regards to stopping genocide in Europe. I'm a pacifist (don't confuse pacifism with complacency though).
>You do realize Muslims have been violent before that right?
I'm aware of the Islamic "golden" age built on the backs of Christian slaves. I'll take your hatred of brown people and raise you an article: https://archive.is/Xanpv
Two wrongs don't make a right, and non-intervention would actually cause more damage to Islam than any intervention into the Middle East currently happening.
>For the price of conversion
>Implying there's a price
>Implying that always happens
>And starting plenty more.
[Citation Needed] You can put some blame on the protestants for being violent little shits, but Europe would arguably be a much more violent place if not for Catholicism and Orthodoxy
>Like stoning adulterers.
And the pagans dipped people into oil pits, ripped out their intestines while folks were still alive, etc. They reduced barbarism tremendously, and were some of the main proponents in creating safer/less painful forms of death penalties (and are key right now in trying to eliminate death penalties).
>Mother Teresa
It's like you think Mother Teresa was the only one to ever start a hospital. Kek.
>>>/pdf/217
>Hahaahahaah, creationism n the classroom how great.
If you honestly think creationism is the epitome of Christian education, then your knowledge of Christianity is severely flawed.
>List of islamic terrorist attacks
>Literally every single one of them was during or right after a cold war skirmish taking place in the region
>Anti-abortion violence
>Implying only people who are religious are against abortion
>Crusades
You really don't understand what the crusades were about, do you?
>Spanish Inquisition
About the only one with any weight to it, and it was a direct post-response of the reconquista.
Now, please answer for the crimes against humanity committed by
Napoleon's tyrannical rule
Than Shwe's human rights violations in Burma
Kim Jong Il (do I even need to discuss his atrocities?)
Jeffrey Dahmer (a great strawman to use since you claim everyone will suddenly become rational without religion)
Jim Jones who, and I quote, "took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism" and used his influence to make people commit suicide
Mao Zedong in China who's methods led to the death of a minimum of 20 million people (though it's estimated at closer to 67 million) including another 36 million who were imprisoned and tortured.
Joseph Stalin who literally used militant atheism as a means to kill and persecute millions of Christians
>B-but those were individuals!
>B-but those were communists!
Ignoring Napoleon, Atheism does not have a very good track record since it became more popular in the last century.
No.12857
>>12856
I should mention that the pdf link doesn't even contain information about the thousands of Slavic Orthodox hospitals.
No.12858
>>12853
>If I had to rate my belief's strength, I'd rank it at about 20-35ish. I was an agnostic atheist for the last 13 years and only recently began to accept god into my life.
But you believe enough to call yourself a Christian. What is the foundation of your belief?
Experience/faith/upbringing
No.12860
>>12851
>Faith is a shitty unreliable process
On what basis? I've yet to meet a moral or straight edge anarchist who wasn't also either religious or raised in a very religious household. Then again, I understand the draw towards adultery in this day and age.
>No one uses faith to reach serious conclusions, outside of religion
Are you saying no one uses faith outside of people in church to reach serious conclusions (which I'd heavily disagree with, just because you don't use faith doesn't mean others fail to do so), or do you mean that only people who are religious use faith (in which case I'd have to say "no shit, Sherlock").
>If you had to make a pie chart what portion of your belief would be faith/evidence/upbringing?
I'm not quite sure I understand what you want here. Are you asking for how much of my life revolves around faith (not very much unless it comes to moral/philosophical questions), or are you asking for each one as a percentage? To which I'd say that pie chart would not be able to accurately describe why I converted/am converting from 13 years of atheism.
I'm aware of the brain bridge separation that takes place during puberty (before it strengthens) which gives rise to many supernatural "experiences."
>How could you convince them that they had made a mistake in their attribution?
Why would I accuse them of making a mistake in their attribution? I'm not from India, and I don't plan to go there. Let the missionaries who go there figure it out. I'm concerned with my own family. They'll probably make a comparison and explain that the person in India actually experienced an act of god and try to rationalize it that way. India has virtually every religion in the world living in (relative) harmony there, shit I even have a copy of the bhagavad gita on my bookshelf.
>Could you use faith to reach any conclusion?
Define conclusion. If you mean to help in the rationalization of an opinion or action YOU take, then sure. I wouldn't use it to describe physical acts though.
>If you can use faith to reach any conclusion, like that the Detroit Lions will win every superbowl for the next 50 years, is it really a reliable process?
Faith is meant to help in forming moral, philosophical, and ethical conclusions in a society. Why do you feel the need to make claims like this? What point are you trying to reach?
>If they were wrong then, is it possible they were wrong in teaching you their religion?
Those are decisions you have to make. No one is perfect and that's why religion is a community and not just your parents. This argument doesn't even follow though since I could replace religion with atheism and come to the same conclusions. "Oh, my parents were atheists and were wrong about X, maybe they're wrong in teaching me atheism?"
I was raised by an LDS mother and a Protestant father, while I've been converting to the Orthodox faith. Sure people get shit wrong. Everyone does.
No.12861
>>12858
>>12858
I'd say morality, happiness, and pacifism are the basic foundations of my belief, or more specifically cause and effect. The more you learn about the history of the Orthodox and Catholic churches and what morals they espouse, the harder it gets to not see the joys of it. I've used the Christian ideals of self sacrifice to make myself stronger both mentally and physically, and I've found myself becoming progressively happier since I started attending church of my own volition. People don't convert overnight, and to give you an accurate answer would require you to wait another six months or so.
What I do know is I'm a better, happier person since I started refining myself through the Orthodox faith. The question of god is less important than the question of if church has been a net positive or negative so far. If I had to describe exactly what began leading me down this path, the only response I could give is "a feeling in the back of my conscience."
No.12864
The only church that illuminates is a burning church.
No.12865
>>12864
Wow, that's pretty violent, anon.
No.12867
No.12868
>>12867
>Dr Izuma said: "When we disrupted the brain region that usually helps detect and respond to threats, we saw a less negative, less ideologically motivated reaction to the critical author and his opinions."
No.12869
>>12792
Retard detected, read pic related
Suicide bombings have no correlation with religious ideology, and the largest number of suicide bombings were carried about by marxist-leninists, hardly a religious organization
No.12871
>>12869
I'd like to note that this is not Christ-Cap from above. I'm going to sleep, but I noticed this while I was getting ready to close my laptop.
No.12872
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>12856
>Buddhists are killing Muslims in other countries, so I don't think your dogma excuse is very useful.
I'm too lazy to count and give you the stats but you can see on inspection who was the clear aggressor here. Something like 2 incidents or so against Muslims by Buddhists but look at the Muslim count against Buddhists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists#Persecution_by_Muslims
>While I'll be the first to say that the Qu'ran is a hateful book, there are multiple sects of Islam, and the ones who believe in submission instead of revolution are not bad people (though you usually won't recognize them as durka durkas).
All religious people are bad in that they are religious. Anyone with faith, vid related.
>I'm aware of the Islamic "golden" age built on the backs of Christian slaves.
What sparked the golden age was more math, they found Euclid's Element's which helped them develop architecture and even develop algebra. But that was developed by a Zoroastrian, Islam appropriated this glory and it's a historical injustice. Islam had little to do with anything, in fact I'd wager it was impeding progress there.
>'ll take your hatred of brown people and raise you an article
I don't hate brown people. My bff is brown and an atheist, we shit on muslims all the time.
As for the article, I don't have enough of a congenital heart defect to read past the title.
>Two wrongs don't make a right
Well yeah because it's additive. 1 wrong + 1 wrong = 2 wrongs not -1*-1=1, 1 != 2
>and non-intervention would actually cause more damage to Islam than any intervention into the Middle East currently happening.
Idk about that but we should've never intervened and closed our borders while developing alternative energies and automation.
>Implying there's a price
>Implying that always happens
The reason the church does this is to get more converts ultimately, and they'll get the ancient equivalent of modern regressives to do it. The church is an age old business.
>[Citation Needed]
See above.
>And the pagans…
That's a religion, you dip.
>It's like you think Mother Teresa was the only one to ever start a hospital. Kek.
No she shows what a Christina hospital can look like.
>pdf
It is true Christianity commands the healing of the sick and probably has impelled people throughout history to develop medicine. However I question how many of those listed did it for those reasons. It's not like them blowing themselves up while screaming Allah. They may have genuinely just been interested in discovering the world and not to be socially outcast claimed to be Christian. So why is it when a goatfucker blows himself up screaming Allah that isn't religion but some guy who happened to be a Christian developing medicine even though there is no clear indication why he did it the work of religion?
>If you honestly think creationism is the epitome of Christian education, then your knowledge of Christianity is severely flawed.
Charlemagne made the cancer that is known a liberal arts. He was a illiterate Christard who made a system of indoctrination in education that plagues academia to this day.
>Literally every single one of them was during or right after a cold war skirmish taking place in the region
Deflection. Islamic wars date back to the 7th century. As far as Europe is concerned Iberia, Gates of Vienna and btw the Turks still occupy half of Cyprus. Oh yeah what a peaceful bunch until provoked my ass.
>Implying only people who are religious are against abortion
Christians have been the only ones to blow abortion clinics up as far as I know.
>About the only one with any weight to it, and it was a direct post-response of the reconquista.
Due to religion still.
>Joseph Stalin who literally used militant atheism as a means to kill and persecute millions of Christians
This is the only one that was due to atheism. But idk sometimes I wonder what to do when you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into what can be done for reason to prevail?
>Than Shwe's human rights violations in Burma
>Kim Jong Il (do I even need to discuss his atrocities?)
>Jim Jones who, and I quote, "took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism" and used his influence to make people commit suicide
These guys were religious. Jim Jones was a Christian cultist who the term drink the Koolaid comes from. Jong Il is a Pharaoh essentially to his people. A living god.
No.12873
>>12865
You can't be violent against buildings, retard.
No.12874
>>12869
> hardly a religious organization
I disagree.
No.12875
>>12869
Trisomy 21 detected.
>In a criticism of Pape's link between occupation and suicide terrorism, an article titled "Design, Inference, and the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" (published in The American Political Science Review), authors Scott Ashworth, Joshua D. Clinton, Adam Meirowitz, and Kristopher W. Ramsay from Princeton charge Pape with "sampling on the dependent variable" by limiting research only to cases in which suicide terror was used:[3] Pape's analysis has no control group. Appendix II lists 58 occupations by democracies, only 9 of which generated suicide terrorism. An analysis explaining the difference between the 9 with suicide terrorism and the 49 without is lacking.
You seriously have to have your head in the sand not to see the link between religion and the violence it incites.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/ten_reasons.htm
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/
No.12877
>>12856
This also applies to you too:
>Literally every single one of them was during or right after a cold war skirmish taking place in the region
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/
>Between 632 and 1922, Islam launched 548 offensive battles against classical civilization.
No.12878
OP, what is even the point of this thread? I don't know why Robespierre is still alive and making threads on /liberty/, but none of the things you've listed are even exclusive to religion, but even if they were, killing off literal billions of people would create a far larger problem than the problem of religious people existing to begin with, and that's just the utilitarian argument.
Additionally, there is no such thing as freedoms being restricted temporarily. You think just handing over the power to cull off billions of people is something you can give away and take back lightly? The government can't even repeal the most miniscule of laws to begin with, why on earth would you expect that they would hand back the power to slaughter people?
No.12879
>>12872
>Liberal Arts are a bad thing
Liberal arts redefined western civilization for centuries to come via the search for lost knowledge, faggot.
State-funded universities making liberal arts a shit degree that niggers and SJWs can get is a bad thing.
Stop parroting /pol/.
No.12880
>>12875
Firstly, the quote you linked doesn't actually address my point at all, it's a non-sequitur. I can fully accept that Pape's argument about occupation doesn't hold up, but that still doesn't give you any backing for your idea that religion causes suicide bombings. What is the correlation between people who are religious and suicide terrorism, exactly? Suicide is in prohibited under Islam, and al-Qaeda had extensive debates whether to use it all, eventually deciding that they had to purely on the basis of pragmatism, not religious doctrine.
Secondly, everything you're talking about is related to Islam, not "religion". If anything, it seems like you should be arguing to ban Islam. I would still argue against you because ideologies that cause people not to think critically and to murder for their cause hardly need be theistic in nature, but I think you would have at least have a better argument.
No.12882
>>12878
>but none of the things you've listed are even exclusive to religion
Religion is a if not the largest fraction of what causes those things. Removing religion would reduce the instances of those events.
>>12879
I'd like some fries with that.
But you cannot deny how liberal arts are used for indoctrination. On the greater scale unfortunately. It just has a modernized flavor now. Still pretty christcucked. Christcucks were the SJWs of their time, but with legitimate grievances. SJWs are crybabby faggots.
No.12884
>>12880
>Firstly, the quote you linked doesn't actually address my point at all, it's a non-sequitur.
I provided my sources that address your point. One is a nice compendium of stats showing the correlation with violence, not specific to suicide bombing. But you can't deny when a goatfucker shoots up some cartoonists who drew their Prophet screaming Allah Ackbar what the obvious motive was.
>Secondly, everything you're talking about is related to Islam, not "religion".
Umm read above: ctr-f Jains for more details.
No.12885
>>12882
>Removing religion would make people rational
Do you really think they wouldn't just find a different excuse?
No.12887
>>12882
Even if I grant your premise, the cure is still worse than the disease. You're talking about the forced removal of over 6 billion people from the earth. How can you possibly sit there with a straight face and say that religion is holding the world back and causes violence when you, presumably an enlightened atheist, is saying that almost the entire population of earth should be thrown into the ocean?
No.12888
>>12885
Some but there would be a reduction in irrationality by removing kebab I'm mean religion.
No.12889
>>12882
>I'd like some fries with that.
Kill yourself my friend.
No.12890
>>12887
Universally free education would fix it without violence.
No.12892
>>12890
And who's going to pay for that education? Who's going to decide the standards for said education? What if people don't accept it? Is there a method that lets you know if they passed or failed?
And you mean indoctrination.
Do you even /liberty/, brah.
No.12893
>>12890
People go to non-religious schools all of the time you pillock, they're very capable of being religious at the end of it.
Secondly, why are we calling state-run education "free" on /liberty/, of all places
Thirdly, what you're talking about is forcible indoctrination, only to your side. And it's not going to be unbiased, either. It's going to be state-run education, so it's going to teach a far more insidious ideology than any religion, statism, for which more people have died throughout the history of humanity than religion.
No.12894
>>12892
>>12893
There were plenty of anarchist schools before.
And I'm not talking about forced indoctrination, the educated person will naturally question her own beliefs and end up as an atheist.
Funny how you call it indoctrination but the parents' brainwashing is totally OK.
No.12895
>>12892
She's cute though.
No.12896
>>12894
If there is free, anarchist schooling, will everyone be compelled to use it? Even if we assume that these schools are 100% successful at proselytizing people to atheists, if people do not have to attend, there will still be religious.
>And I'm not talking about forced indoctrination, the educated person will naturally question her own beliefs and end up as an atheist.
As much as I do not care for the man, Benjamin Carson is one of the most accomplished neurosurgeons in the world, yet he is still religious. It is perfectly possible to be educated and religious.
No.12898
>>12894
Who is going to offer the schooling? I'm not denying anarchist schools existing, but there are incentives for teachers to teach. Who the fuck is going to sit down six billion people and teach for free?
And you never answered the question of what if they don't accept it? You're acting as if you can just magically "teach away" something that is inherent to a community. Were your parents atheists growing up, anon? How old are you? Because right now you're not coming off as old enough to be browsing 8chan.
No.12899
>>12894
this
Actually studying how the facts contradict religion should at least overwhelm their mental gymnastics for a great number of them.
Probably make cosmology and evolutionary biology mandatory for graduation. Encourage some sessions to be a comparison of the facts to their stone age ancestral gibbering.
>>12896
It doesn't need to be 100% the first round, it approaches 100% over generations quickly.
>Benjamin Carson is one of the most accomplished neurosurgeons in the world, yet he is still religious. It is perfectly possible to be educated and religious.
He clearly skipped on evolutionary bio. He sounds like an idiot when he talks creationism, it's hilarious. Human brains are very partitioned, where intelligent people can believe absolute nonsense.
No.12900
And forgot
>>12887
>Even if I grant your premise, the cure is still worse than the disease.
That's like your opinion, man.
No.12901
>>12898
He sounds old enough, you mistaken him for OP.
No.12903
>>12896
One last detail:
>proselytizing
>to induce someone to convert to one's faith.
No, you see atheism isn't faith. It can be but the position reached through reason is that there is no evidence to believe in god. It's the lack of belief.
No.12906
>>12899
>Creationist meme
Enough of that nonesense already. You're acting as if Christians don't believe in science and give me the impression that you've bever even spoken with a theologian, let alone stepped inside of a church.
>It quickly approaches 100%
Education does not make one less Christian. My STEM professors over the years were almost all Christians. A loosening of morals through sexual deviancy and war (as well as a strong dosage of propaganda) is what's making people not Christian in many of the results you're basing your argument on. Your argument is that you want to eliminate brainwashing by effectively abusing public education to brainwash whomever you please, and don't even realize the slippery slope you're setting yourself up for.
No.12908
>>12903
You keep making this appeal to reason, but you have yet to point out your reasoning behind why god doesn't exist- only that you hate religion/think it's terrible likely due to a lack if education about religion's history/positives.
No.12911
>>12906
>Christians don't believe in science
If they did completely they wouldn't be Christian.
>My STEM professors over the years were almost all Christians.
Cute anecdote.
>loosening of morals through sexual deviancy and war (as well as a strong dosage of propaganda) is what's making people not Christian
No, it's actually the church theocracy withering in power. No longer able to shelter the minds of their flock as they used to. Couple that with the availability of information including all the debates their pastors get their asses handed to by prominent atheists.
>Your argument is that you want to eliminate brainwashing by effectively abusing public education to brainwash whomever you please
The abuse is what religious parents do to their children, a public education that requires cosmology and evolutionary bio isn't brainwashing. You'd have to be retarded to say otherwise.
>>12908
>yet to point out your reasoning behind why god doesn't exist
Way to miss the point. I don't believe when there is no evidence to convince me. It's idiotic to believe in something with no tangible evidence.
>only that you hate religion/think it's terrible
I have explained why countless times throughout this thread. It's getting annoying repeating myself at this point.
>likely due to a lack if education about religion's history/positives.
Nice projection.
No.12916
>>12911
>Cute anecdote.
Were his claims really so outlandish that you have to see hard evidence (i.e. manufactured statistics) to believe them? The statistics you yourself posted prove that half of all scientists are religious.
>The abuse is what religious parents do to their children, a public education that requires cosmology and evolutionary bio isn't brainwashing. You'd have to be retarded to say otherwise.
Public education is barely with presenting facts and encouraging original research, it also works with public shaming and appeals to authority. Teachers and students seldolmy meet each other on equal ground, dissent is branded as stupidity and there is no way to fix this power balance, as children barely have any rights in regard to their education, not even the right to choose another school with a different model of teaching. In that sense, public education always includes a good deal of indoctrination.
>Way to miss the point. I don't believe when there is no evidence to convince me. It's idiotic to believe in something with no tangible evidence.
So you have a reason not to believe in him: Lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence, though. The next step would be to establish why, in the particular case of god, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
No.12920
>>12911
>>12911
>>12911
93% of the scientists at the National Academy of Scientists are atheists
No.12924
>>12898
Do you really think they only teach for the money? I'm not sure about the situation in the USA, but here they are grossly underpaid, overworked, and you need pretty high qualification to be allowed to teach.
No.12926
>go to sleep
>come back to thread
>50+ more long posts
Don't have the time for this shit.
OP, at the end of the day, you're advocating for thought control. Even if your motivation is benevolent, it still runs contrary to everything liberty stands for. A lot of the time, tyrannies exercised for our own good can be the worst of them all.
No.12930
>>12924
Do you really think they would teach if they had zero income?
Underpaid or not, they still are paid in order to cover living expenses. There's only a select kind of successful person capable of teaching without being paid for it, and they tend to be people who were successful in life (and also religious).
No.12932
>Implying evolution is the pinnacle of science and will never be replaced with a better theory They've already had to change it about as many times as climate change
>Implying peer review isn't extremely dishonest
>Implying science is the pinnacle of society when it's been infiltrated and is in fact destroying society
No.12933
>>12930
No, but that's a fault of capitalism. In a proper anarchist community, where your continued existence is guaranteed by the community, many would.
No.12937
>>12873
That building is the spiritual home of many individuals, and private property, so yes, it is violence.
Keep what you said in mind if your house burns down.
No.12938
>>12916
>hard evidence
>manufactured statistics
lol wut?
>The statistics you yourself posted prove that half of all scientists are religious.
They support the claim that access to scientific information reduces religiosity, it's a comparison of everyone vs scientists.
>Public education is barely with presenting facts
That's the liberal arts.
>Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence, though.
Yeah, but what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There might be a tea pot floating 20,000 feet above ground right now but there is no reason for any of us to believe it.
>The next step would be to establish why, in the particular case of god, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
No it's unnecessary. The divide runs along with who believes things out of evidence and who believes things on blind faith not even factoring the contradictions of their holy books to the facts. That is telling in itself.
>>12926
Liberating the mind is the greatest freedom of all. There is no greater tyranny than that of a captive mind. There is no greater slave than the one who thinks he's free. And religion is a mental cage, forcing make believe nonsense on the minds of people at an early age. Perverting their thinking. What I'm proposing is actively is undoing the thought control administered by religion.
>>12932
>Implying evolution is the pinnacle of science and will never be replaced with a better theory
Evolution has been empirically demonstrated, see: D. melanogaster speciation. The only thing now is a better understanding of the mechanisms.
But it's funny that you treat revision as a bad thing. Science is able to learn and adapt to new evidence. It's all about the facts, if the evidence doesn't fit then clearly we need to rework things. Religion is rigid in comparison, "this is the book of god and that is all how dare you question the word of god?"
Truth is approached by inquiry and skepticism, what is left after scrutiny is tested. It's the methodology that makes all the difference.
>Implying peer review isn't extremely dishonest
It isn't perfect but again, it's better than no peer review. Far better than forcing nonsensical beliefs onto people with no overview whatsoever.
>Implying science is the pinnacle of society when it's been infiltrated and is in fact destroying society
Pfttahahaha, that's why you're on your computer right now. And when you're sick pray. If that's how you feel don't you dare use modern medicine because that is the product of science, even if your doctor is Jewish he is still operating scientific principles just does some mental gymnastics in his head to reconcile his religion. "Science is ruining society", my ass. LOL I can't believe you typed that.
No.12942
>>12938
>Liberating the mind is the greatest freedom of all. There is no greater tyranny than that of a captive mind. There is no greater slave than the one who thinks he's free. And religion is a mental cage, forcing make believe nonsense on the minds of people at an early age. Perverting their thinking. What I'm proposing is actively is undoing the thought control administered by religion.
The problem with that line of thought is that not everyone wants to be free. You can't force someone to be free, as that is contradictory to the concept of freedom. Some people don't want to be free, and you have to accept that.
And I'm pretty sure the evolution isn't real guy is trolling you.
No.12944
>>12942
Those some people have been against their will indoctrinated to be that way, you could say it's a sort of internalized self-enslavement. And they will go on to indoctrinate their kids with this bullshit and their kids and so forth. I don't believe any person by default doesn't want to be free, only through dogma does that get hijacked. This cycle of mental tyranny needs to be put to a stop and showing them the facts and arguments tear their beliefs down is not force.
The approach I think you're suggesting here does not maximize freedom, leaving them be will only allow them to continue their enslavement of more and more minds. We must actively break down their institutions and that can be done by debate and education alone once their stranglehold on government is completely dissipated. To this day churches are still tax exempt for instance, once they have no state support they're done.
Anyway I gotta go to lab now.
No.12945
Can an atheist describe to me how science rationalizes entropy?
How science rationalizes what creates gravity? inb4 some dumbass actually think the Higgs Boson creates gravity.
Oh right, those are systems based on the faith that our equations and models work correctly.
No.12946
>Unironically keeps linking to Hitchens
Your entire argument is that Muslims are bad people, therefore we should do away with all religion.
>What sparked the golden age was more math
What sparked the golden age was more the fact that they abused a collapsing empire in order to take over a major sea trade route allowing pirates to flood said trade route. They also heavily changes European-Asiatic relations and made it extremely difficult for trade to take place. This would have happened regardless of their faith.
>As for the article
If you can't read one article while linking wikipedia right and left (which is in a shitty format), how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
>1 wrong + 1 wrong = 2 wrongs not -1*-1=1, 1 != 2
Go back to counting out exactly 55 teddy grams to eat.
>The reason the church does this is to get more converts ultimately
They actually do it "ultimately" because they're good people and following their religion. Religion isn't a corporation and while it's nice to not be a minority, Christianity and many other religions were founded on the ideas of peaceful martyrdom and voluntary self-sacrifice.
>pdf comments
I find it rich that you insist that all bad things were caused by religion while no good things could possibly be tangentially related to religion when they're tied back directly to religion. This is the definition of a closed mind.
>Shitting on Charlemagne and the liberal arts
The Liberal Arts as they were originally founded gave John Locke the philosophical means to create his theories, giving rise to the very ideas you espouse. Just because a bunch of pricks have taken them over/are handing out degrees that no longer properly teach the liberal arts doesn't mean they aren't an extremely important aspect of western civilization. Your ignorance is showing.
>Deflection
I was responding to the link you gave me, but I get the impression you never even read the link you provided.
The Islamic wars would have happened even without Islam, much in the same way you like to claim medicine would have happened without Christianity. Either be consistent or don't try to argue like this, anon.
>Christians have been the only ones to blow abortion clinics up as far as I know.
And secularism has been the only thing to blow up doctors without borders as far as I know. Atheism has been the only thing to blow up Christian hospitals in Russia via the USSR. Pro-life atheists are a thing. What's your point?
Jim Jones admitted to being an Atheist, Than Shwe can at best be described as a "cultural buddhist" which doesn't even match up given you said yourself that buddhist dogma doesn't approve of the human rights violations he's created, and the Kim Jongs (while they idealize themselves as divine beings) have been firm atheists.
No.12947
>>12946
I'm going to make two statements here.
1) Atheism has had a chance to show its true colors only in the last century or so with the rise of religious freedom (and militant atheism), and in the last century it has created more human rights violations and murders (I define all acts of killing as murder) in any given year than Christianity gave rise to in the course of decades outside of VERY select circumstances (read: Cherry picking). Therefore, anon's claim that atheism will somehow make everyone rational human beings and solve these issues is not ground in reality. People will perform these actions regardless, and may actually use a lack of faith as an excuse to commit even worse atrocities.
2) Anon(s) continue to attack religious faith as a great evil, but proceed to only refer to Islam (never mind the fact that Islam accounts for 23% of the world's population) before using Islam as an excuse to blame Christians and every other religious ideology. Since his premise is to use one religion to attack other religions, and that all religion must be destroyed, given the first statement, it can be assumed that Anon is in favor of using the state to accomplish these means through violent coercion, even though he claims to be an anarchist.
Little tidbits for you:
>Duke University Medical Center has found that religiously active adults (not people who claim to have faith, but those who are religiously active) are 40% less likely to have high blood pressure
>The American Sociological Review found that actively religious people had higher life-satisfaction ratings and stronger social bonds
>The Journal of the American Medical Association found that late-stage cancer patients were about four times as likely to survive resuscitation if they were religious
>Duke University found that religious people have better immune systems, and are half as likely to suffer from high levels of inflammatory proteins
>the Population Association of America found that going to church more than once a week resulted in living seven years longer, as well as that skipping church results in a 1.87 times greater risk of death
>The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that religious teachings make you less likely to ingest junk food
>The journal Psychological Science finds that religion improves self esteem and psychological adjustment
>Ben Martin discovered that religion can help reduce anxiety (which correlates quite nicely with the rise in anxiety attacks as society becomes more and more secular)
>The American Journal of Psychiatry found that religious individuals recover from depression much more easily than non-religious individuals (this was directly linked to the belief that a supreme being cared about their well being)
>The journal Health Education & Behavior found that regular church goers are 15% more likely to visit a doctor and check up on their health
>Religiously active families have been shown (via population-based research) to result in less juvenile delinquency, less drug use including less smoking, better school attendance, and a higher probability of graduating from high school.
>Rodney Stark (who's dedicated himself to studying religion and its impact on society) has found that religion produces an extra 2.6 trillion dollars per year to the USA's GDP
No.12949
>>12947
>Atheism has had a chance to show its true colors only in the last century or so with the rise of religious freedom (and militant atheism), and in the last century it has created more human rights violations and murders (I define all acts of killing as murder) in any given year than Christianity gave rise to in the course of decades
I ain't OP but what are you talking about? If you're referring to communism, that is a major misnomer. Even though communists were atheists, they didn't kill in the name of atheism, they did so in the name of communism. That's a very important distinction to make.
I regards to those studies, yeah, I suppose religion does have it's benefits. Though I think that the optimism that religion brings is what causes these things. Being optimistic in general would probably help lower your blood pressure and all that jazz.
No.12951
>No, it's actually the church theocracy withering in power.
[citation needed] power is withering because people are leaving the faith. People aren't leaving the faith because power is withering.
And we wouldn't have it any other way anyways. We'd rather be with the true bonafide Christians who are left than the fake Christians who were just there as "the norm."
>Couple that with the availability of information including all the debates their pastors get their asses handed to by prominent atheists.
You mean the protestants who butchered a lot of the faith to make it to their liking? The "original atheists" so to speak?
>The abuse is what religious parents do to their children
I'd say the single parenthood and stress/anxiety that come from your lack of faith (or rather, faith in the state) qualify more as abuse than suggesting a higher being. I'll need a [citation needed] on how religious teaching is abuse inb4 another fedora video.
>A public education that requires cosmology and evolutionary bio isn't brainwashing.
And you obviously didn't get my jab. I was commenting on the fact that your evolutionary bio shit was retarded because they do teach it in private schools as well as Christian schools. If anything, the students who learn evolutionary bio and "cosmology" (I'd prefer if they learn something actually useful/applicable to daily life like Newtonian Physics or basic Chemistry) from Christian schools are better able to fact check scientific papers. You claim that faith is unchangeable when the modern Christian faith was created by philosophers and theologians discussing various concepts both "mystical" and material in determining how to go forward with the faith.
>I don't believe when there is no evidence to convince me. It's idiotic to believe in something with no tangible evidence.
You've never taken a University level Physics or Engineering course, have you? Many of our "theories" are postulations that we assume must be true in order to effectively use our equations (which have their own deals of inaccuracy that are generally ignorable on the macroscopic level, but not on the particle/microscopic levels or giant levels as in celestial bodies).
>I have explained why countless times throughout this thread.
You've explained your hatred of brown people living in the Middle East.
>Nice projection.
But not wrong based on some of your comments. I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming your parents were atheists or non-religious.
No.12952
>>12949
I'm commenting on his flawed logic in which he likes to bitch about every evil done by people was caused by religion whereas he slides under the table any and all the atheists who've committed evil. But yes, they did kill Christians in the name of atheism.
I don't agree with the logic as I think you need to look at individuals/their incentives, not religion (and in most cases not their political beliefs), I'm just pointing out that if OP uses his current logic path he's following, it can be used against him very easily.
No.12954
I'm still laughing, a Christian "Anarcho"-Capitalist is just too absurd.
No.12959
No.12966
>Usually I'm for freedom but I'm sorry but I don't believe in religious freedom.
And therefore you're not for freedom at all since absolute concepts have no exceptions, anyways with your posts you demonstrated that you aren't Libertarian at all, just a silly sperging Special Snowflake Leftist.
No.12969
>>12949
>I ain't OP but what are you talking about? If you're referring to communism, that is a major misnomer. Even though communists were atheists, they didn't kill in the name of atheism, they did so in the name of communism. That's a very important distinction to make.
Actually, they totally did kill in the name of atheism. Ever read about Marx' critique on religion? Opium für das Volk, and all? Outside of Latin America, most regimes took that to heart. Getting rid of religion was part of their master plan. This should come as a surprise to nobody, because they tried to get rid of pretty much everything that stood in the way of their brave new world, including religion, capitalism, intellectualism and even being neutral. It was worst in Cambodia, where people were murdered for wearing glasses, as this was ostensibly a sign of belonging to the intellectual elite.
No.12982
>>12969
>>12952
Communists killed the religious and were atheists not on grounds that they thought that religion was false, just that religions often served as instutions that stood against commies. Consider North Korea, where Christianity is banned but people are expected to worship the Kim Jongs.
If I were to give a non-communist example, Hitler hated the church but was a man of faith. I believe he wanted to change the religion of germans to some volk shit once the war was won.
I suppose at the end of day the church has done many good things. It's got bad things under it's belt, but people tend to exaggerate it. I'm fedora as fuck but I'd be unconformable with religion being banned.
No.12983
>>12951
OP is wrong but that pic is a massive fucking strawman. Most atheists know you can't disprove god (technically speaking).
No.12984
>>12945
>entropy and gravity
>faith
Entropy is a measure of disorder, which is the number of possible arrangements of a system given heat and temperature. S=Q/T. Also gravity isn't explained by the Higgs Boson, you dolt. The Higgs Boson explains the origin of mass.
No.12985
>>12946
>Your entire argument is that Muslims are bad people, therefore we should do away with all religion.
Oh I get it you have no reading comprehension.
>What sparked the golden age
Math built their infrastructure, which enabled everything else.
>Religion isn't a corporation
Pfttt hahahaha, religion as a whole no. But many religions do operate as corporations.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-banks-profit-soars-1432568173
>I find it rich that you insist that all bad things were caused by religion while no good things could possibly be tangentially related to religion
Reread my comment, you moron:
>It is true Christianity commands the healing of the sick and probably has impelled people throughout history to develop medicine. However I question how many of those listed did it for those reasons. It's not like them blowing themselves up while screaming Allah. They may have genuinely just been interested in discovering the world and not to be socially outcast claimed to be Christian. So why is it when a goatfucker blows himself up screaming Allah that isn't religion but some guy who happened to be a Christian developing medicine even though there is no clear indication why he did it the work of religion?
Also moar Hitchens.
>John Locke
Was an idiot. Tabula rasa is a moronic concept, we're not all born equal.
>The Islamic wars would have happened even without Islam
Nope, you didn't read shit. Those wars were begun because of Islam's expansionist nature. The end goal of Islam is to span the globe as a massive caliphate, forcing everyone to submit to Allah. It's funny because a lot of Christians realize this, but you're too cucked for your own good.
>much in the same way you like to claim medicine would have happened without Christianity.
Medicine existed prior to Christianity.
>Either be consistent or don't try to argue like this, anon.
Hahaha, this from the moron who says every good thing a religious person does is them following religion but when they scream Allahu Ackbar when blowing themselves up isn't the fault of Islam.
>atheists have done bad things too
Ok, the difference is they aren't propagating a set of mystical beliefs that poison people's faculties.
>Jim Jones admitted to being an Atheist
Yet he ran a church dedicated to Jebus. The only thing about him being an atheist is word of mouth, not evidence. But I guess that's evidence for people like you.
>Than Shwe can at best be described as a "cultural buddhist" which doesn't even match up given you said yourself that buddhist dogma
Wow so you have 1 outlier, while there are countless examples of Jihadists. Way to be consistent.
>while they idealize themselves as divine beings
> have been firm atheists.
Goddamnit you're an idiot.
>>12947
>and in the last century it has created more human rights violations and murders (I define all acts of killing as murder) in any given year than Christianity
Yeah that's why gay people aren't being flogged anymore. Hahahaha you don't have a leg to stand on it's so funny.
> Anon(s) continue to attack religious faith as a great evil, but proceed to only refer to Islam
I even call the Jains a problem. The problem is belief without evidence.
>ignorance is bliss
ok, it's still ignorance.
No.12986
File: 1448001179560.png (24.86 KB, 640x389, 640:389, 640px-Annoyed-facepalm-pic….png)
>>12951
>power is withering because people are leaving the faith. People aren't leaving the faith because power is withering.
It's both really. Back in the days of Bruno and Galileo the church had a stranglehold on people's thoughts. Now after years of a few skeptics cutting down the bullshit, the church has lost its power over people and thus they leave and as they leave the church loses more and more power.
>protestants
>atheists
Pffttt, hahahah they believe in god they're not atheist you dip.
>teach it in private schools as well as Christian schools.
Hahaha, they teach it as though it's just another world view, not necessarily the fact.
>from Christian schools are better able to fact check scientific papers.
Oh such delusions.
>You claim that faith is unchangeable when the modern Christian faith was created by philosophers and theologians discussing various concepts both "mystical" and material in determining how to go forward with the faith.
Uhuh, that's why they locked up Galileo and burned Bruno at the stake. Yeah so willing to go past faith. Hahahah, idiot.
>Many of our "theories" are postulations that we assume must be true in order to effectively use our equations (which have their own deals of inaccuracy that are generally ignorable on the macroscopic level, but not on the particle/microscopic levels or giant levels as in celestial bodies).
Pffthahahah
Theory doesn't mean the same thing as assumptions. You know when I state the assumption such as ideal op-amp, or Carnot cycle it's a simplification. They don't exist in nature, it's just to solve the problem. When I assume steady state irl, I have to then test my system to see if my assumptions correspond to reality. For something to be a theory it has to be rigorously tested. It doesn't mean guess. You make assumptions in order to solve problems but they aren't theories until demonstrated. Dumbass.
>You've explained your hatred of brown people living in the Middle East.
Where exactly? Islam isn't a race you idiot. My best friend is a brown atheist and we shit on muslims all the time.
No.12987
>>12952
>I'm commenting on his flawed logic in which he likes to bitch about every evil done by people was caused by religion whereas he slides under the table any and all the atheists who've committed evil.
Actually I accepted what the USSR did, you lying prick.
No.12988
>>12985
>tfw 8chan still buggy
still love you HW.
but le pic that was supposed to go with that
No.12990
>>12983
We don't need to, the burden of proof is on the theists.
No.12991
>>12986
This is how creationists teach evolution. I'll post the T&P episode to go with it.
No.12992
>>12983
You're looking at the proving/disproving of god.
The person who made that pic was pointing out that the Atheist cares more about taking a massive shit on religion than their actual beliefs/the evidence behind their beliefs- namely, how they've changed the rhetoric over the years.
No.12993
>>12992
>atheists are adaptive bawww
Hahaha, way to stagnate yourself.
No.12994
No.12995
>>12984
Congratulations, you effectively described what entropy does without actually explaining what entropy IS. Because the word disorder naturally implies a lack of knowledge.
>The Higgs Boson explains the origin of mass.
No shit. That's why I mentioned to not bring it up- dumbasses will just explain what gravity does without describing what it is. Based on our current knowledge of gravity, I could literally say that it's "gravity fairies" pulling you down and I wouldn't technically be wrong by scientific standards.
Those are the two most meme-worthy notions, but there's literally hundreds in science that we assume away because our equations only work when we toss in these constants or ideas that we don't actually understand. That was my point.
No.12996
>>12993
>Implying Christians aren't
Read the pic anon was bitching about, faggot.
No.12997
>>12995
>you effectively described what entropy does without actually explaining what entropy IS
No you idiot, I explained what entropy is. The measure of disorder. That is what it is not what it does.
>Because the word disorder naturally implies a lack of knowledge.
You're illiterate.
> Based on our current knowledge of gravity, I could literally say that it's "gravity fairies" pulling you down and I wouldn't technically be wrong by scientific standards.
No you couldn't. You'd need to show them before you can say that. We use gravity as a field or acceleration without invoking its origin.
>Those are the two most meme-worthy notions, but there's literally hundreds in science that we assume away because our equations only work when we toss in these constants or ideas that we don't actually understand. That was my point.
My goodness you're beyond hope.
No.12998
>>12996
Cry me a river faggot.
No.12999
It's hilarious watching scientific illiterates try to debunk science. As fun as this all is I have more important thing to do than waste my time trying to reason irrational people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
No.13000
>>12999
1 more get for the go.
No.13001
>>12986
>Unironically bringing up Galileo
You're really not even worth my time any more and continue to show the failures of the public education system. I'm glad I read through your post instead of formulating responses as I read it, as it just saved me a headache. There's no reason in trying to argue with someone who screams indoctrination without realizing the indoctrination right under his nose.
So instead of responding to a misinformed autist, I'll just tell you to enjoy your artificially inflated get… And tip harder, faggot.
No.13009
>>12959
Oh, Christian Anarchism is certainly a thing, but with capitalism mixed in, it's just a bad joke.
No.13010
>>13001
Kill yourself my friend.
No.13011
>>13000
wew lads
>>13009
Christianity can certainly exist in ancapism. While it's core principles may oppose philosophies often connected to the ideology, christians themselves can decide for themselves what they will do with their money and what they do with their lives (so long as the don't bother anyone else).
No.13014
>>13011
I'm not sure which core principles you're referring to.
Christians are just statist as fuck. Christian principles/the ideology are pretty anarcho-friendly.
No.13016
>mfw a christcuck is a christfaggot near me
No.13032
>>12779
athiesm killed way more people than any religion ever, in a sane society it should have been forbidden
No.13034
>>13014
Oh, that's what you meant. Nevermind then.
No.13050
>>13032
Communism killed way more people than any religion ever, in a sane society it should have been forbidden.
No.13052
We should kill the Muslim religion. Any other religion is free to do as they wish/
No.13114
>liberty
>authoritarian shit - not my religion, then die
That's real nice.
No.13482
>>12786
>this whole thread
>tfw agnostic
>inb4 pick a side, faggot
No.13500
>>13486
>muh kike on a stick
We've already been over this a dozen or so times, faggot.
No.13504
>>13482
Agnostics can shut the fuck up tbh. Smug autistic motherfuckers.
No.13534
>>13500
Jesus might have been a jew according to my knowledge, but I don't think it matters. Especially considering many of his values are pretty anti-shekelism. Though pics like that may be referring to things like conservative christians being strongly pro-Israel and something about the hebrews being god's preferred people (though it's debatable whether modern jews and ancient hebrews are the same people, as argued in The Invention of The Jewish People, an interesting book of which I have yet to read).
No.18071
In an ancap society you can live in an atheist community and never interact with religious people.
That said, the only really problematic religion nowadays is Islam. In comparison, the problems and scientific delays caused by Christianity are peanuts. Also, most people are not mentally prepared to be sane atheists, so if you remove religion they will reinvent it, and who knows what form it may take.
No.18074
>>18071
>Also, most people are not mentally prepared to be sane atheists,
This is simply untrue. It is very rare that someone will become an atheist and then a commit horrible crimes cuz no muh irrational beliefs. Nihilist dude weed lamo? Maybe.
Also, fuck Christians. The only useful purpose their irrationality served was preventing women from being whores and they can't even do that anymore. Retards.
No.18148
>>18074
Peaceful fedoras ARE a small minority and this fact won't change anytime soon. Most atheists are rabid commies.
No.18160
>>18148
In my experience, most atheists are left-leaning, but not yet full-blown commie. I think their typical views are very interesting to explore. They are not completely void of merit, but if you never outgrow the atheist-phase I believe many of us had, then you're doing something very wrong.
No.18166
>>18160
kind of ironic given how much of an altruist Jesus was. i've never been able to understand why the "religious right" isn't the religious left.
No.18169
>>18166
I've been wondering about that, too. Might be a particularity of anglo-american christianity of the last hundreds of years. As in, calvinist influences still working their magic.
Or it might be a result of christian values crashing against socialism. Socialists have traditionally tried to eradicate the family AND the church (except in South America, for reasons), and obviously, christians object to that. So maybe that's why the conservatives formed an alliance with the capitalists.
No.18170
>>18169
could be. it is pretty interesting to watch conservative catholics have an internal struggle whenever the Pope speaks out against capitalism. trying to hold onto their established economic thinking without internally disagreeing with him, because thought crime.
No.18177
>>18160
>They are not completely void of merit, but if you never outgrow the atheist-phase I believe many of us had, then you're doing something very wrong.
>If you don't claim to know something you don't know you're irrational
No.18178
>>18177
fucking bullshit, I changed back my flag to ancap
No.18292
>>18177
>he says, claiming to know something he does not know
No.18293
>>18166
Imo the appropriate christian politics is socially conservative leftism, aka third position