Atheists were initially outraged by the Big Bang theory, denouncing it as Catholic propaganda.

Atheists were initially outraged by the Big Bang theory, denouncing it as Catholic propaganda. The concept of the universe having a definitive beginning echoed too closely the religious narrative of creation, making many atheists suspect it was a ploy to insert faith into science. They vehemently championed the steady-state model, which maintained the universe had no beginning, to avoid any semblance of divine implication. Despite this fervent opposition, the overwhelming tide of scientific evidence (by Catholic scientists) eventually established the Big Bang as a cornerstone of modern cosmology.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No serious historian thinks Jesus the historical person didn't exist, they just don't necessarily think he was the Messiah.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Kim Jong Un existed. However he never moved mountains or scored the world record lowest golf score or summoned lighting from the heavens.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That was his father Kim Jong Il. But it's him too. Same with Kim Il Sung. It's the Korean Trinity.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Talmud
      If you were to accept the Talmud as a legitimate source for the historicity of Jesus, you'd have to accept that Jesus was a magician and a blasphemer too:
      >The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.
      >On the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government."
      According to the last passage, he was the ancient equivalent of a CIA-funded cult leader.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's another independent source in the long list of independent sources. The point isn't that what they say is true, but that they agree Jesus was a historical figure which is the bare minimum to have conversations with atheists. Many moronic reddit atheists argue that Jesus didn't exist AT ALL.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Pharisees lied about Jesus being an evil-doer in the talmud because they were butthurt about him.

        Modern day israelites, who are literally just the Pharisees, who call Jesus evil names and Christians "idol worshippers", those aren't the Biblical israelites, those aren't Moses and Abraham and Job and the disciples. Those aren't the people that Jesus came for.
        Point is, the true israelites are called Christians now, and the Pharisees who Jesus chased out of the temples and yelled at and chastised are what we call israelites in the modern day. The greatest grift they ever pulled.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they were butthurt about him.
          How is this an argument? Some dude twists your religion and says a bunch of blasphemous shit that goes against tradition. This is the same horse shit that Christians use against non-religious people
          >you see, my claims make you skeptical
          >aha! the book anticipated that people would be skeptical
          >therefore the israeli God is real

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The talmud (pharisees) say he was just going around destroying the israeli faith for shits and giggles
            Every other source says he was a good man who was fulfilling the prophecies. He just got mad at the Pharisees who were being your typical evil, greedy, rules-lawyering israelites. You know, the ones that later went on to bad mouth him.
            I'd trust the multiple sources (with explanations of how he pissed off the pharisees) then the talmud that just goes "lolol he was evil, just trust me he had no reason so we tortured him and killed him"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >just shut your eyes to: the Bible
      >a book with literal motherfricking talking animals in it

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like CS Lewis but this is a poorly constructed argument and that made me like him a little less.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus was a shit moral teacher. Most of the shit he taught was very bad advice, ie turn the other cheek and be poor instead of rich.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lmao is it 2013 or something

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        All this is making me think is that religious wisdom was just the original onions "so true" memes that got passed around.

        >be OP
        >buy Oyish Pass™
        >Use it to create a thread just to image dump your "Own the Atheist" image folder
        This is...incredibly sad

        This isn't even an own. Fedora here is being based.

        You have to really be a low IQ moron to buy into mythology as real. And it does a disservice to the material as well. This is like if I took Aesop's fables and said that this was all true and literally were things that happened. It completely misses the point of the material itself or the messages being conveyed. You have to be a very broken or low IQ individual where you cannot have a mature and nuanced view of mythology and incorporate some values and discard others because "hurrrr its all got 2 be real". It's embarrassing honestly.

        ?t=1426

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody is reading any of this, nor are they watching that Youtube video. You didn't post that image, or that YouTube link to convert anyone. Because thats not what this is about. This thread is about YOU trying to reaffirm your own faith. You didn't make this thread for atheists, you made it for yourself.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          This guy is an atheist now btw. Actually looking into the shroud and how it's a forgery broke him.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Proof? I believe uni just wanna see it myself

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          This guy is an atheist now btw. Actually looking into the shroud and how it's a forgery broke him.

          I'm an atheist, but I look down on people who have such weak faith in God that they rely entirely on miracles to believe in God. If God is real, then it wouldn't be necessary for there to be supernatural miracles to provide evidence for Him. The laws of nature alone should be enough to attest His existence.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, miracles would be nice. It would be actual proof of God.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Czechia and east germany?

      Does count!

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        i dont think a country where you have to build a wall to KEEP PEOPLE IN is a good country

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah it sucked I'm talking about modern east of germany

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also communism is religion in all but name.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Having sex without protection, a clean STI test from both partners, or both is stupid, regardless of who either partner is.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why didn’t this dude just guck a prostitute or hook up with an extremely low tier woman. You know some women frick homeless people right?

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      This isn't even an own. Fedora here is being based.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So he's not looking for "comfort" in heaven? Why not just burn in hell if comfort and happiness are not your goals?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        shove your shitty strawman argument up your ass redditor

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you think I built a strawman, then please explain what he's saying. He's not following religion for happiness. So what is he following it for? Why have rewards and punishments when pleasure seeking and pain avoidance don't matter?

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      All this is making me think is that religious wisdom was just the original onions "so true" memes that got passed around.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >posters: 1
    Damn those atheist boogeymen sure do live in your head rent free

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      : 1
      >Damn those atheist boogeymen sure do live in your head rent free

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Two things can both be true. The Church preserved a lot of important writings through copying. They also destroyed a lot of writings they considered in some way heretical or heathenish.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be OP
    >buy Oyish Pass™
    >Use it to create a thread just to image dump your "Own the Atheist" image folder
    This is...incredibly sad

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You have to really be a low IQ moron to buy into mythology as real. And it does a disservice to the material as well. This is like if I took Aesop's fables and said that this was all true and literally were things that happened. It completely misses the point of the material itself or the messages being conveyed. You have to be a very broken or low IQ individual where you cannot have a mature and nuanced view of mythology and incorporate some values and discard others because "hurrrr its all got 2 be real". It's embarrassing honestly.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >athiests were initially outraged by the big bang theory
    I hear you morons say this on repeat, but when asked to prove it you never do

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
      >the Big Bang carries possible theological implications regarding the concept of creation out of nothing.[3][4][5] Many atheist philosophers have argued against the idea of the Universe having a beginning - the universe might simply have existed for all eternity, but with the emerging evidence of the Big Bang theory, both theists and physicists have viewed it as capable of being explained by theism

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Concept_history
      >After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady-state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model the universe is roughly the same at any point in time

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
      >Hoyle declared himself an ATHEIST

      >Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[61] He inferred the relation that Hubble would later observe, given the cosmological principle.[9] In 1931, Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where is the "outrage" in that ?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        you said 'outraged'. disputing something is not outrage, except perhaps for religiotards.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where did you run off to lil bro?

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    1. Primary Sources: The New Testament
    The Gospels: The four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the primary sources of information about the life and teachings of Jesus. While they contain theological interpretations, they also provide historical narratives. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written around 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

    Pauline Epistles: The letters of Paul are some of the earliest Christian writings, predating the Gospels. Paul's references to Jesus, his teachings, his crucifixion, and resurrection are significant, especially given that Paul wrote these letters within 25 years of Jesus' death.

    2. Non-Christian Sources
    Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD): A israeli historian, Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his work "Antiquities of the israelites." The more notable reference, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, speaks of Jesus as a wise teacher, a doer of wonderful works, and one who faced crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

    Tacitus (56-120 AD): The Roman historian Tacitus, in his work "Annals," written around 116 AD, refers to Jesus' crucifixion by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome.
    Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD): In his letters to Emperor Trajan, Pliny mentions the early Christian community, their worship, and beliefs, indirectly testifying to the existence of Jesus.
    Babylonian Talmud: This israeli text, while written much later, contains references to Jesus and his crucifixion, albeit in a negative context.

    3. The Criterion of Embarrassment
    Historians often regard stories that might be embarrassing or detrimental to the authors as likely authentic. Several events in the Gospels, such as Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion (a humiliating form of execution), fit this criterion. The inclusion of these events suggests that the authors were committed to recording what they believed happened, even if it might not portray Jesus in the most favorable light.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      4. Multiple Attestation
      When an event or saying of Jesus is found in multiple independent sources, it's more likely to be historical. For example, Jesus' crucifixion is attested in all four Gospels, Paul's letters, and non-Christian sources like Tacitus and Josephus.

      5. Historical Accuracy of the Bible
      Numerous archaeological discoveries over the years have corroborated various details mentioned in the Bible, lending it historical credibility. For example:
      The Hittites: Once thought to be a biblical legend, archaeological findings in the 20th century confirmed the existence of this ancient civilization, as mentioned in various Old Testament books.
      Pontius Pilate: An inscription found in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 bears the name of Pontius Pilate, confirming his historical existence and role as the Roman Prefect of Judea, as detailed in the Gospels.

      6. Prophecies and the Messiah
      The Old Testament contains numerous prophecies that Jesus fulfilled:
      Born in Bethlehem: The prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). This was fulfilled as recorded in Matthew 2:1.
      The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 depicts a "suffering servant" who would be rejected, suffer for others, and bear their iniquities. Christians see this as a clear foreshadowing of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.
      Entry into Jerusalem: Zechariah 9:9 prophesied that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey. This was fulfilled as described in Matthew 21:4-9.

      7. Jesus' Profound Knowledge of Scriptures
      Throughout the Gospels, Jesus demonstrates an intimate knowledge of the Scriptures:
      At the Temple: At age 12, Jesus was found in the temple, discussing the scriptures with teachers, leaving them astonished at His understanding (Luke 2:46-47).
      During His Ministry: Jesus frequently quoted, interpreted, and elucidated the scriptures in His teachings, revealing deep insights.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        8. The Dead Sea Scrolls
        Discovered between 1947 and 1956, the Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments from every Old Testament book except Esther. These texts, which predate Jesus, confirm the reliability and consistency of the Old Testament scriptures over time. The Scrolls also provide context for the religious landscape during Jesus' time.

        9. External Corroboration
        Outside of biblical texts, ancient historians such as Tacitus and Josephus make references to Jesus and early Christians. These external accounts provide additional historical layers to the Gospel narratives.

        10. Jesus' Claim to Fulfill the Law
        In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus states that He has come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). His life, teachings, and sacrifice can be seen as the culmination of the Old Testament prophecies and laws.

        11. Early Christian Writings
        The writings of early Church fathers and Christian apologists, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Clement of Rome, provide insights into how early Christians interpreted the scriptures and viewed Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.

        12. Historical Continuity
        The Catholic Church traces its origins directly to Jesus Christ and His apostles, particularly Peter, whom Catholics regard as the first pope. This unbroken line of Apostolic Succession provides a historical foundation that few institutions, let alone religious ones, can claim.

        13. Universality
        The term "Catholic" means "universal." The Church has a diverse membership that spans nations, cultures, and races. This universality suggests a faith that resonates with diverse human experiences and cultures. This is as compared to Eastern Orthodox churches, which are more traditional than Protestants, but are still heavily divided on state lines.
        Matthew 16:18 - I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >primary sources: these accounts that occurred long after the man himself died

      that term doesn't mean what you think it means

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        are you really gonna dispute the historical Jesus
        really
        even moronic reddit atheists are smart enough not to do that

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          if you argue the historicity of Jesus without even knowing what the words you use are, no wonder there are still people who don't believe in it

          I do, for the record (I just don't think it matters), but you need to stop being an idiot about making that case

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The assertion that the New Testament Gospels are not primary sources overlooks the scholarly consensus on the nature of historical documentation and primary sources. Primary sources are firsthand accounts of a time period or specific event, which typically include documents such as letters, diaries, administrative documents, recorded oral traditions, and others that provide direct evidence or firsthand testimony.

            Contemporaneity: The four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are indeed primary sources for the life and teachings of Jesus. Although they were not written by Jesus himself, they include accounts from those who were directly involved in the events or from the early Christian community that preserved these traditions. The Gospel of Mark, widely accepted by scholars as the earliest Gospel, was written around 70 AD, which places it within a generation of the events it describes. This temporal proximity to the events of Jesus' life enhances its value as a primary source.

            Eyewitness Accounts: It is a common historical practice to consider accounts written within living memory of events to be primary sources. The Gospels were written when witnesses to Jesus’ life were still alive and could have contested false claims. This adds to their credibility, as they were subject to contemporary scrutiny.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Primary sources are firsthand accounts of a time period or specific event, which typically include documents such as letters, diaries, administrative documents, recorded oral traditions, and others that provide direct evidence or firsthand testimony.

            yes, and the Gospels aren't themselves any of those things. they were not written at the time. they are retellings of _other people's_ alleged contemporary accounts gathered decades after the documented time period, making them by definition secondary sources.

            words mean things.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry, I will not worship yhwh

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Does naming a specific god you won't worship, instead of just saying "I won't worship deities", imply there are other gods you will worship?

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Too bad our understanding of cosmology completely debunks genesis, another case of abysmal IQ Christard compuslive cherrypicking.

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    great thread bro

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheists are moronic we already know

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >atheists oppose something until provided with sufficient evidence to accept it
    >meanwhile christians still believe in genesis despite modern scientific evidence
    Not the best example.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      atheists CLAIM oppose something until provided with sufficient evidence to accept it
      yet will presuppose logic, reason, consciousness, human thought, objective truth without sufficient evidence
      the arbitrary and contradictory worldview collapses and what remains is theism

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >presuppose
        All systems of belief, whether religious, atheistic, or even mathematical are based on axioms that cannot be proven. Yet it seems that the atheistic dogma allows them to change their mind on the origin of reality whereas the Chrisitian dogma explicitly forbids it.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >All systems of belief, whether religious, atheistic, or even mathematical are based on axioms that cannot be proven.
          I'm not denying this, however they insist they need proof for God but when it comes to logic, reason, consciousnesses, human thought, objective truth, they presuppose them without evidence.
          So to insisting on evidence for 1 metaphysical concept, but presupposing others is what makes their position ad hoc and self contradictory

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you think some concepts exist? then why don't you think that all concepts ever devised exist? checkmate atheists

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            not what was said at all

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was, though.

            >So to insisting on evidence for 1 metaphysical concept, but presupposing others is what makes their position ad hoc and self contradictory

            The thrust of this argument is clearly that if one presupposes some metaphysical concepts like logic, reason, etc. without proof, then not presupposing the metaphysical concept of the Christian god is a self-contradiction. This can be applied to all metaphysical concepts ever devised, and indeed must be in order to be a consistent objection.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if one presupposes some metaphysical concepts like logic, reason, etc. without proof, then not presupposing the metaphysical concept of the Christian god is a self-contradiction.
            again this was not what was said at all.
            what WAS said was:
            they insist they need proof for God but when it comes to logic, reason, consciousnesses, human thought, objective truth, they presuppose them without evidence
            So to insisting on evidence for 1 metaphysical concept, but presupposing others is what makes their position ad hoc and self contradictory

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't say this thing, I said this other thing that means exactly the same!

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >makes an argument against a point that was never made
            >le epik maymay text
            classic

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >source: dude trust me

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
      >a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
      >the Big Bang carries possible theological implications regarding the concept of creation out of nothing.[3][4][5] Many ATHEIST philosophers have argued against the idea of the Universe having a beginning - the universe might simply have existed for all eternity, but with the emerging evidence of the Big Bang theory, both theists and physicists have viewed it as capable of being explained by theism

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Concept_history
      >After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady-state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model the universe is roughly the same at any point in time

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
      >Hoyle declared himself an ATHEIST

      >Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, proposed that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[61] He inferred the relation that Hubble would later observe, given the cosmological principle.[9] In 1931, Lemaitre went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        see

        Where is the "outrage" in that ?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >being this pedantic over a fricking word
          just go to hell with the rest of your pharisee friends

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're gonna be burning in hell forever. I'm gonna be in heaven. Who's winning now, useless c**t?

            >God is love btw

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            love without punishment is just apathy

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it isn't you unhinged moron

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            God loves you enough to give you the free will to chose him or hell

            This is the mentality of a psychopath.
            >Love me or burn :^)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            glad you don't like it :^)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I enjoy subscribing to an embarrasing belief

            We know

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I enjoy subscribing to an embarrasing belief
            if i did id be an atheistcuck

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >not accepting someone's right to treat you like an object is 'being a cuck'

            Yes, and up is actually down, good job

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            God loves you enough to give you the free will to chose him or hell

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God's love is chosing to be his slave or be tortured forever

            Sounds like the 'love' of a serial killer

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            glad you don't like it :^)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            As any sane person wouldn't.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            weird cope

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If youdon't, why don't you accept slavery today? Slavery is biblical after all, yet you don't engage in it. It's almost like you don't really believe any of this stuff and this whole 'religious belief' you have is one giant post-Gamergate trauma virtue signal

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    guys, I'm worried. I was a devout believer in Athe all these years, but incessant christian schizoposting is making me drift towards doubting.

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love how morons that make theism their defining personality trait take these quotes and pretend that its proof for why you should follow their own specific, eclectic brand of religion that is laughable if presented on its own

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're gonna be burning in hell forever. I'm gonna be in heaven. Who's winning now, useless c**t?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not my fault you were too moronic to believe in God when all the facts were presented before you. You have no excuse. Go to hell, pharisee israelite.

        Your evidence for *your* God is the exact same as evidence for all other Gods. If your faith is based on these post-enlightenment copium pills made by liberal subjects trying to deny the reality that they are past the point where they can spiritually believe in God without the need of proofs, then you are just lying to yourself if you don't think you are merely entering a 1 against 1000000 odds game of chance with your faith being the right one.

        Btw, if you actually *feel* God, and *feel* that they are real and true, then to me that is an infinately better proof of theur existance than this pseud copium shit.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not my fault you were too moronic to believe in God when all the facts were presented before you. You have no excuse. Go to hell, pharisee israelite.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You seem upset

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You seem upset

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is it just me or are Christians getting dumber? Not even over decades, I mean I've the past few years, especially since COVID. Their arguments used to be partially based on reason and logic, now it's just full blown schizoposting or delusions about reality.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      its the atheists getting dumber

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Then why aren't you engaing it right now? You're bending your knee to those evil secular values, right?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      its illegal

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, by ungodly worldly standards. You do believe in biblical standards, right?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          and?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you live by biblical standards, yes or no?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not going to play 20 questions with you.
            if you have an argument please present it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Biblical standards say that slavery is very much commanded by God, while secular law bans it. If you don't have slaves, I'm going to assume you're just an atheist with a cathedral fetish

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Biblical standards say that slavery is very much commanded by God
            ok prove it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            From Exodus 21:
            >Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

            Now, should we follow this, or secular law?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            but that is a law that describes how to treat slaves not a law saying you have to own one

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That wasn't the question. Do I need to follow Exodus 21 or secular law?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That wasn't the question. Do I need to follow Exodus 21 or secular law?
            they aren't in conflict with each other

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

            There isn't a single country in the civilized world where this is legal

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There isn't a single country in the civilized world where slavery is legal so you wouldn't be in that position anyways
            what are you confused about

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And is that banned according to Biblical law, or secular law?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            so again if you have an argument please present it but i'm not going to play 20 questions with you

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please answer my question

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tbh that's not an answer either. That would be: he is forbidden to follow Exodus 21 because he's not circumsized and therefore the Law does not apply to him.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he is forbidden to follow Exodus 21
            so again that is a law that describes how to treat slaves not a law saying you have to own one

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In pretty much every civilized country on earth, it isn't just not being mandatory to own slaves,owning slaves in itself is a criminal act. So,everything described in Exodus 21 is criminal, and if you do any of these things described here, you will be put in jail. Now, according to you, should we follow Exodus, which tells you the guidelines of slave ownership, or secular law, which bans any form of slavery?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Exodus doesn't require anyone from owning slaves

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And according to modern secular law, owning them isn't legal to begin with, so that's completely irrelevant

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            so whats your issue

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is modern secular law correct, which considers slavery illegal, or is Biblical law correct, which considers slavery legal?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            what makes a law 'correct' or incorrect?
            slavery being legal or illegal doesn't say anything in the moral sphere and the Bible doesn't mandate people own slaves so there is nothing wrong with banning slavery either

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what makes a law 'correct' or incorrect?
            Biblical: God said it
            Secular: not following it causes harm

            Now answer my question

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you i'm not playing 20 questions with you but you're free to make an argument at any time

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >call atheists amoral relativists
            >can't even answer whether banning slavery is good or bad

            What a pathetic faith

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            guess you're too moronic to make an argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I already told you i'm not playing 20 questions with you but you're free to make an argument at any time
            You didn't even get to one question, let alone 20. Now pick one thing and stick to it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol ok cope,
            if you're able to make an argument please present one but I think you're too moronic to

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am not the Anon you were arguing with.

            My argument is this - something can be wrong because it causes harm regardless of what God thinks. We all know that morality allowing slavery is never "good" for the slave in the sense of pain and pleasure, and the fact that the Bible allows slavery shows how immoral the Bible actually is, how little it cares for our happiness. Similarly, the fact that you claim to be a moral authority but can't answer even the simplest moral question (why something is or is not wrong) shows you have no concept of what ethics are or why they're important. I'm not surprised, though, because you're a troll.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My argument is this - something can be wrong because it causes harm regardless of what God thinks
            what makes it 'wrong' then?
            >We all know that morality allowing slavery is never "good"
            this is appeal to consensus fallacy
            >and the fact that the Bible allows slavery shows how immoral the Bible actually is
            but you're basing this off the assertion that 'something can be wrong because it causes harm' yet you haven't shown that to be true.
            >Similarly, the fact that you claim to be a moral authority but can't answer even the simplest moral question
            Like I said I'm not going to answer random questions, he/you can present an argument if you/he want to
            >because you're a troll
            oh god how dare someone make arguments instead of answering leading questions

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anything that goes against God, atheists love.

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Despite this fervent opposition, the overwhelming tide of scientific evidence (by Catholic scientists) eventually established the Big Bang as a cornerstone of modern cosmology.

    The big bang never happened, and though they will try and blame it on the catholics, it will be seen as a transparent cope.
    There will be a reckoning for scientism when the certainty it promised in opposition to spirituality comes crashing down.

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Begin studying science
    >become atheist
    >get hit by a truck before you got to the bottom of the glass and thus didn't accept Jesus christ
    >be tortured in hell for eternity
    Any God that allows this is evil

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      how is it evil

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >how is torturing a sentient creature forever on the premise of whether they managed to follow arbitrary criteria, set by you, introduced to them only by a book from thousands of years ago, in a limited & uncertain amount of time before they 'lose' (die), evil
        If that's not evil, then evil is a useless word, as is good.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          ok but you're saying something is evil without any basis for what is or isn't evil

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            My basis is the sense of empathy I was born with.
            The Christian argument that
            >no see, I acknowledge that Hell is arbitrary, but you just don't know what good is because God defines good
            Is Pascal levels of defeatist. You know it cannot be justified at any human level so you just assert that God knows better.
            Yet even then, the moral guideline Jesus gives demonstrates this would be evil by his own view point:
            >So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
            Your text which you claim demonstrates what good and evil are by what God does, is not self-consistent anyway.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My basis is the sense of empathy I was born with.
            ok but that doesn't say anything about something being universally true for everyone its just your own taste preference.
            >>no see, I acknowledge that Hell is arbitrary, but you just don't know what good is because God defines good
            but i never said this
            >Is Pascal levels of defeatist. You know it cannot be justified at any human level so you just assert that God knows better.
            what exactly cannot be justified?
            >Your text which you claim demonstrates what good and evil are by what God does, is not self-consistent anyway.
            where are you getting this from? no not "everything God does makes it permissible for humans to do as well". that has never been a Christian position

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The extent to which debate over the Big Bang theory fell along religious lines is severely overstated by religious apologists, however it is true that some atheist scientists had such concerns and also that most materialists throughout history believes that the universe was eternal. Then they were BTFO when scientists found that it was created in one week several thousand years ago. Ok, no, they didn't find that, but they did discover the universe had a beginning. Well, sort of. Not really. But they did discover that it wasn't always the way it is now. So, Catholics, you can have that W. I bow to your religion's amazing predictive power.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *