I'm atheist. Try your hardest to prove chistianity is the true relgion.

I'm atheist. Try your hardest to prove chistianity is the true relgion.

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Umm our God (the God) is real because the Bible says so. Checkmate atheists cut down the tree of odin frick white culture

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    But without God, morality is subjective. At least with God, I can say that morality is what I believe God says, and that makes it objective. Now give me 10% of your income and call me the most special and unique person in the world.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You have israeli morality then

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >without God, morality is subjective
      Nope.
      >At leasts with God, I can say that morality is whatever God says, and that makes it objective
      Wrong again. If your morality is ultimately based on “cuz I sez so” then that is the morality of a child. Intellectually bankrupt. Does God command something because it is good? Then morality is objective and God is a messenger, this morality can be reached without God playing middleman. Is something God just because God commands it? Then your morality is not objective at all.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        God, morality is subjective
        >Nope.
        Literally yes, anon. Without a pure, true source of morality, anyone can claim anything is moral, as long as they have some clever way to justify it.
        >>At leasts with God, I can say that morality is whatever God says, and that makes it objective
        >Wrong again. If your morality is ultimately based on “cuz I sez so”
        Its not i sez so, its God says so.
        > (...) does God command something because it is good? Then morality is objective and God is a messenger, this morality can be reached without God playing middleman. Is something God just because God commands it? Then your morality is not objective at all.
        Hes not the messanger, hes the creator and determiner. God is not the middleman, hes the man. And its objective because it is objectively from a higher, divine source
        Youre playing semantics, and poorly at that.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s not I sez so, it’s God says so
          Do you believe God is a person? The vast majority (though not all) religions do. If you believe God is a person, it doesn’t matter if it’s you or God saying so, morality is still subjective. The subject just happens to be God in this case. Now you can say that’s better than your own personal morality or any other human, and that’s fine, but don’t claim to have “objective morality”, because that isn’t objective. This isn’t semantics, it’s a fact. You can say God is objectively more powerful than you or all of humanity combined, that doesn’t change the fact that your God is a personal *subject*, and thus, his moral pronouncements and commands are a subjective morality.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But without God, morality is subjective.
      Morality is FACTUALLY subjective, which is why different cultures have different morals. E.g. Hindus don't eat beef for religious/moral reasons, but in western cultures, we do eat beef.

      Also of course different people within a society can have different morals. A poor person might think that charity is a moral obligation, but a rich person might not.

      Of course some morals are considered very important within a culture - so much so, that they're codified into law. That's the most objective standard of morality within any given society - the law.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm atheist
      Please prove that no God exists, first.
      I will wait.

      OP knows that, he is a israelite and hates Christian morality hence his promotion of the cult of athiesm.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Please prove that No God exists.
        I'm unable to confirm or deny that information, because I'm a humble agnostic, not a raging "know-it-all" Atheist butthole.

        https://i.imgur.com/CX2hpXc.jpg

        I'm atheist. Try your hardest to prove chistianity is the true relgion.

        >Please prove that God exists.
        I'm unable to confirm or deny that information, because I am a humble agnostic, not a raging "know-it-all" Theist butthole.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm atheist.
    Being an atheist requires just as much faith as being a theist. At least agnostics are honest.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Agnostic
      >Honest
      >Agnostic:
      a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
      Sir, that's Nihilism, it's denying Absolute Truth, by saying that there isn't Absolute Truth, yet not realizing that statement itself is an Absolute Truth statement, it's a self contradiction. It's some weird mutated form of Nihilism + Gnostic Cope. Basically saying that you can't come to know, implying that you're already knowing, or else you wouldn't make such a statement, yet saying 'Well, I didn't say I know.' The Statement itself alludes to knowing, as ignorance is not knowing, therefore, wouldn't have been known and such a statement wouldn't have been possible.

      I can deal with the Atheist, they'll have to give an account on moral and the inherences of the Truth and the False, which they immediately fold upon, and epistemology, yet with the Agnostic, it's some shifting sands and dodging things, basically playing dumb.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Sir, that's Nihilism
        Correct but at least they're usually up front about that unlike atheists.
        >it's denying Absolute Truth, by saying that there isn't Absolute Truth,
        Only when it comes to metaphysical or spiritual matters. Unless I'm mistaken most agnostics still think 2+2=4.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Only when it comes to metaphysical or spiritual matters. Unless I'm mistaken most agnostics still think 2+2=4.
          They'd have to give an epistemic justify account on how they can come to know that, when their worldview is just Nihilism, furthermore, the True and False and how inherently tied to the Good and the Bad.
          >It just is
          That in itself wouldn't justify it. That's why I'd rather deal with an Atheist, Agnostic is too wild.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They'd have to give an epistemic justify account on how they can come to know that
            Why? It's not contradictory to believe in material reality yet still say you don't know if God exists.

            >True and False and how inherently tied to the Good and the Bad
            Not true. IS and OUGHT are two different things.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not true. IS and OUGHT are two different things.
            Why ought I accept that?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        As an agnostic I don't think the answers to the higher questions are unobtainable, I'm just humble enough to say I don't know the answers yet.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Not knowing is nihilism
        >And God is absolute truth
        >But if there is no absolute truth you can't say you know there is no absolute truth
        Both of your premises is wrong. Nihilism is believing in nothing nor not knowing if there is something. Furthermore it presupposes that god is absolute truth which would require a prior assumption about Gods nature. Furthermore more even if one were to accept these premises the inference doesn't follow, he doesn't know if there is absolute truth, there may be some absolute truth that is either unreachable or not yet reached to man.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >not believing in santa requires as much faith as believing in santa

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't know where this finite universe came from but I definitely know God or something like God doesn't exist and didn't create it.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          atheism is the lack of belief in a positive assertion. It doesn't necessarily make any assertions beyond expressing incredulity at the assertions of others. The insane contortions you have to do to warp the state of not being convinced of something into being an affirmative act only proves this point.
          And what's even the rhetorical point of casting atheists as being faithful to a belief? Because it just looks like you're trying to say that blind faith is stupid when your entire worldview rests on exactly that.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >atheism is the lack of belief in a positive assertion. It doesn't necessarily make any assertions beyond expressing incredulity at the assertions of others
            Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
            >The insane contortions you have to do to warp the state of not being convinced of something into being an affirmative act only proves this point
            You either believe in God or you don't bro. Otherwise you're agnostic. Not believing in God means you believe the universe was not created by one. Which is impossible to know.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
            yeah, that's kinda what I just said.
            >Not believing in God means you believe the universe was not created by one.
            None of this follows at all. You're still trying to turn a lack of belief into an assertion, which it isn't. To be an atheist means that you have not been convinced by an theistic explanations. Where did the universe and life on earth come from? The atheist isn't sure, and so he performs experiments to try to determine the answer. This experimentation raises doubt with respect to the christian assertion that all of the above phenomena were created by a bronze age magical israelite wizard.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The atheist isn't sure
            THAT MAKES YOU AGNOSTIC.
            To be an atheist means you are SURE God does not exist and didn't create the universe. It really isn't the difficult. You have to ASSERT that God does not exist in order to be an atheist.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            read the rest of my post, you stupid b***h. An atheist is simply someone who is not convinced by religious explanations of the world. It fricking says that in the definition you quoted.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >An atheist is simply someone who is not convinced by religious explanations of the world.
            By that definition atheists and agnostics are both the same fricking thing. Agnostics aren't convinced of the religious explanations of the world either. Otherwise they'd be theists. On the other hand, agnostics aren't convinced that God DOESN'T exist either. It's always the same with you morons, every time someone tries to nail down what you atheists actually believe you move the goalposts. To be an atheist means you DO believe in something. It means you believe God does not exist. That and saying you disbelieve in God are the same God damn thing. Your official position is that there is no God. Period.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By that definition atheists and agnostics are both the same fricking thing
            Yes. There is a pretty big overlap between these groups.

            You're essentially saying christian cannot refer to people who believe Jesus rose from the dead for their sins because baptists refers to the exact same thing.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes. There is a pretty big overlap between these groups.
            Not really. Agnostics don't know if God exists. Atheists know God doesn't. Hence why saying "an atheist is simply someone who is not convinced by religious explanations of the world" is a deliberate attempt to move the goalpost by conflating the two.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It means you believe God does not exist. That and saying you disbelieve in God are the same God damn thing.
            so every criminal defendant who has ever been exonerated was innocent, right? Because a jury not being convinced that they're guilty is exactly the same as the jury emphatically believing that they're innocent? These concepts are exactly the same, right?
            If someone on the street came up to you and said "Hey, anon, I'll let you see my pet unicorn if you give me $50!" are you staking out an ideological position, that unicorns unequivocally do not exist, when you say "Uh, I don't believe that you have a pet unicorn." to the guy? Or are you just being skeptical because the proposition sounds like bullshit?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            whenever you see a fedora resort to infantilizing transcendent theistic concepts by equivocating them with buzzwords like "sky daddy", "magic israelite fairy", "unicorn", "teapot in space", "santa claus" etc you know they've lost the argument

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"You've lost the debate!"
            >he says, refusing to engage with the substance of the post

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so every criminal defendant who has ever been exonerated was innocent, right? Because a jury not being convinced that they're guilty is exactly the same as the jury emphatically believing that they're innocent? These concepts are exactly the same, right?
            A jury not being convinced he's guilty WHILE ALSO not being sure if he's innocent would be the equivalent of jury agnosticism yes. Since our laws state that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty to convict them jury agnosticism means they aren't guilty. Not that it has been proven innocent. Just found not guilty. Any lawyer can tell you this.
            >are you staking out an ideological position, that unicorns unequivocally do not exist, when you say "Uh, I don't believe that you have a pet unicorn."
            Yes. You literally just said you don't think his unicorn exists. You believe that unicorn isn't real.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not that it has been proven innocent. Just found not guilty. Any lawyer can tell you this.
            yes, you humungous fricking sped, that's the whole point. Not guilty != innocent, it just means not guilty. It's as much a reflection of the competence of the police and the prosecutor as it is the actual facts themselves. The prosecutor has not convinced the jury that the defendant is innocent. The question of the efficacy of the prosecution is closely related to the question of the innocence of the accused, but they're not the same fricking question.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >yes, you humungous fricking sped, that's the whole point. Not guilty != innocent, it just means not guilty. It's as much a reflection of the competence of the police and the prosecutor as it is the actual facts themselves. The prosecutor has not convinced the jury that the defendant is innocent. The question of the efficacy of the prosecution is closely related to the question of the innocence of the accused, but they're not the same fricking question.
            I understood your moronic analogy which is why I said not guilty would be the same as "agnostic." To put it more simply:
            >Theist=Guilty
            >Atheist=Innocent
            >Agnostic=Not Guilty.
            Or in other words:
            Theist=God or gods exist
            Atheist=God or gods does not exist
            Agnostic=Unsure if God or gods exist
            It's not fricking hard to understand.

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            this post chain is an example of misused words creating false impressions, resulting in two people arguing two entirely different strawmen about something they essentially agree upon

            An atheist, in the pure definition of the word, is an individual who simply does not believe in any god, with no qualifiers. "a-" = without, "theism" = believe in a god or gods; atheism = without the belief in a god or gods.
            To qualify atheist, you have either gnostic atheism or agnostic atheism. We already understand that the prefix "a-" means "without", and gnosis is the Greek word for "knowledge" so "gnostic" means "knowing" and "agnostic" means "without knowing". So a gnostic atheist is an atheist who knows - positive action - that there is no god. An agnostic atheist on the other hand is a person who, having no knowledge whether gods do or do not exist, declines to believe.

            However, these words are very much misused by both the proponents and opponents of atheism. When somebody calls themselves an "agnostic" what they actually mean is an agnostic atheist; they have no belief in god. Nobody who is religious calls themself an "agnostic theist" just because they don't -know- for certain that their religion is true, they just call themselves their religion, even if their faith is small. The people meanwhile who call themselves "atheist" are very much -gnostic- atheists, because they believe quite firmly that they know there is no god. And in fact there is another term to describe their position, a term that they don't like because it is a very dangerous term that paints them in a negative light: ANTI-THEIST

            >ANTI-THEIST
            I agree that is probably a better description of most "atheists" I've argued with.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not fricking hard to understand.
            it is hard to understand because you're just stating conclusions that don't comport with reality. Your definition of atheist only applies to the tiny microcosm of online fedoralord debate me bros who have taken up the ridiculous position that they know for certain that god absolutely does not exist to protest religious people who believe essentially the opposite of that. The other 99.9% of atheists are simply people who are not convinced that gods exist. They have not been given evidence in support of the existence of god, and thus refuse to accept god's existence as a matter of faith.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The atheist isn't sure
            THAT MAKES YOU AGNOSTIC.
            To be an atheist means you are SURE God does not exist and didn't create the universe. It really isn't the difficult. You have to ASSERT that God does not exist in order to be an atheist.

            >Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
            yeah, that's kinda what I just said.
            >Not believing in God means you believe the universe was not created by one.
            None of this follows at all. You're still trying to turn a lack of belief into an assertion, which it isn't. To be an atheist means that you have not been convinced by an theistic explanations. Where did the universe and life on earth come from? The atheist isn't sure, and so he performs experiments to try to determine the answer. This experimentation raises doubt with respect to the christian assertion that all of the above phenomena were created by a bronze age magical israelite wizard.

            >atheism is the lack of belief in a positive assertion. It doesn't necessarily make any assertions beyond expressing incredulity at the assertions of others
            Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
            >The insane contortions you have to do to warp the state of not being convinced of something into being an affirmative act only proves this point
            You either believe in God or you don't bro. Otherwise you're agnostic. Not believing in God means you believe the universe was not created by one. Which is impossible to know.

            this post chain is an example of misused words creating false impressions, resulting in two people arguing two entirely different strawmen about something they essentially agree upon

            An atheist, in the pure definition of the word, is an individual who simply does not believe in any god, with no qualifiers. "a-" = without, "theism" = believe in a god or gods; atheism = without the belief in a god or gods.
            To qualify atheist, you have either gnostic atheism or agnostic atheism. We already understand that the prefix "a-" means "without", and gnosis is the Greek word for "knowledge" so "gnostic" means "knowing" and "agnostic" means "without knowing". So a gnostic atheist is an atheist who knows - positive action - that there is no god. An agnostic atheist on the other hand is a person who, having no knowledge whether gods do or do not exist, declines to believe.

            However, these words are very much misused by both the proponents and opponents of atheism. When somebody calls themselves an "agnostic" what they actually mean is an agnostic atheist; they have no belief in god. Nobody who is religious calls themself an "agnostic theist" just because they don't -know- for certain that their religion is true, they just call themselves their religion, even if their faith is small. The people meanwhile who call themselves "atheist" are very much -gnostic- atheists, because they believe quite firmly that they know there is no god. And in fact there is another term to describe their position, a term that they don't like because it is a very dangerous term that paints them in a negative light: ANTI-THEIST

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >tfw typed "believe" when I meant to say "belief"

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So equally the reverse logic is true, theists are talking out of their ass because it’s impossible to know whether or not a being created the universe. The whole argument of existence being a predicate for God is flawed insofar as it’s a logical trap rather than an empirical explanation for the existence of God

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never said the absence of proof of how the universe was created proved God's existence. Just that you can't rule it out completely. Religious people are at least honest about the fact that their beliefs require faith. Unlike atheists.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s mistakenly conflating a metaphysical belief and a scientific hypothesis based on empirical evidence, I can’t be certain that a sinkhole won’t open up beneath my feet, but empirical evidence means I don’t live in fear of the possibility of it happening

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Santa just gives presents. God makes universe and everything in it. This argument just does not hold water. Maybe some aspects, but overall their incomparable.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why does God have to be a bearded man?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Speaking of Santa, why do atheists believe in the only one thing we can't know to be true? That God does not exist?
        Kids who believe in Santa are less wishful than that, you know?

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    you'd have to be convinced of God first then determine which God is true.
    But atheism collapses into self contradiction anyway so thats easy

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lono seems like a pretty cool guy, thanks my dude.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    First things first: do you believe the universe at one point did not exist, and then at some point it did come into existence? That's creationism, by definition; if you believe in the big bang theory or some equivalent transition from a state of non-being to being, you presuppose an uncaused cause that instigated that transition. And since this uncaused cause that preexisted eternally "before" (or rather, independently of) space and time and physical laws had no physical impetus to create out of reactive necessity, it must have done so via conscious choice. And if it did so out of conscious choice, then it necessarily follows that it cared about its creation. Since there's only one religion that has a Creator that cares about anything beside itself, it follows that that religion is the true one, logically speaking.

    However, that is all predicated on the assumption that the universe changes; if however, the universe has always existed eternally, there is no justification for belief in a higher power, at least a transcendent one. In the case that you adhere to steady-state theory and not the big bang, in which there was no creative event, no beginning or hypothesized end, then atheism is a wholly valid viewpoint to take, and indeed the most probable.

    Secondly, do you have a standard of morality? If you claim to be moral, there must be a higher arbitrator of morality than yourself or any man, and if you assume no such transcendent entity exists, you cannot claim to be moral, since in the event there is no absolute authority and source of good and evil, then good and evil do not exist; the words you should use are pleasure and pain. Moral relativism is a self-refuting ideology; however solipsistic utilitarian hedonism is a wholly valid philosophy if that is what you choose to adhere to, since it is internally consistent.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >First things first: do you believe the universe at one point did not exist, and then at some point it did come into existence? That's creationism, by definition;
      kek, no it isn't. You are conflating so many things in this one statement

      coming into existence = created by a Being
      being created = creationism, which refers to a very specific belief about Biblical literalism.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        You are presupposing physical laws before physicality and laws came into existence.
        And I am not conflating anything - if something "previously" (insofar as temporal statements are relevant in a setting devoid of time) did not exist, and then did exist, it by definition was created. Only eternal things are uncreated.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You are presupposing physical laws before physicality and laws came into existence.
          Where?

          Your argument (first cause) presupposes that causality exists outside of the temporal universe with its physical laws.

          >And I am not conflating anything
          That is not how anyone uses the word creationism.

          >Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is not how anyone uses the word creationism.
            the fact that people misuse words doesn't mean the words don't mean what they mean
            >quotes wikipedia
            very transgendered post here

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You need God to ground morality
      Oh my, just when I thought I addressed this moronic take here (

      But without God, morality is subjective. At least with God, I can say that morality is what I believe God says, and that makes it objective. Now give me 10% of your income and call me the most special and unique person in the world.

      ) it would seem I forgot to include you.
      God commanding you not to eat pork and saying something is moral/immoral “cuz I sez so” is not objective morality, it’s still subjective, it just happens to be that you’re not the subject. Objective morality cannot be grounded in any “person” because then it is not objective. It must be grounded in an impersonal entity. I am not even an atheist (or agnostic for that matter), but if you want to argue for God the moral argument is easily one of the shittiest arguments ever conceived

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >without God, morality is subjective
        Nope.
        >At leasts with God, I can say that morality is whatever God says, and that makes it objective
        Wrong again. If your morality is ultimately based on “cuz I sez so” then that is the morality of a child. Intellectually bankrupt. Does God command something because it is good? Then morality is objective and God is a messenger, this morality can be reached without God playing middleman. Is something God just because God commands it? Then your morality is not objective at all.

        morals can't exist independently of God because he quite literally created everything including abstract concepts such as morality

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          God doesn't exist, of course.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >morals can’t exist independently of God
          Yes. In fact nothing exists independently of God. God alone is, the world “is not”, and onky borrows its existence from the true “Real”. You yourself are that Real. Your persona/psyche is temporary, fleeting and ever-changing, but your true self is eternal. This one self is the basis of morality. Morality can be ontologically grounded only in a monistic idealist metaphysics. Anthropmorphic personal “gods” cannot be the basis of morality, they’re just cosmic superheroes that will hurt you if you don’t do what you say. True morality is acting in accordance with reality, Truth. Every act of theft is an act of self-harm. Nonviolence and charity are moral and virtuous because they are in accordance with the TRUTH That your Self is the Self of ALL others, not because some really big and powerful entity will hurt you if you don’t practice these things. You know a moral system is thoroughly corrupted by human culture and social norms when you see moronic shit like “thou shalt not shave your beard” or “thou shalt not eat pork”, why? Because these things have nothing to do with ultimate truth, they are arbitrary commands from a person, and persons can never be the ultimate source of morality.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >and if you assume no such transcendent entity exists, you cannot claim to be moral

      Jfc. Tongue my anus newbie.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you feel about the Polynesian God Lono?
    I don’t know much about him but he makes more sense than anything atheoids put foward.
    >That’s how I feel about your God.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
    Yikes! you really didn’t think that one through did you OP.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I know a big islander named Lono.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    You clearly care a lot more since I'd never make a thread where I tell people to convince me that Lono exists.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      If I'm wrong, I want to be proven so. It's called not being a dogmatic moron. I know Christians aren't like that, but it's not the win you think it is.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm just saying, your picture is inaccurate and is clearly just a way to be dismissive in a smug, mid 2000s new atheist way.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >your picture is inaccurate
          What convinced you that Lono exists?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would never make a post on Lono because I don't care about Lono.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the point of OP.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            why argue with em then? frankly, it doesn't seem very uncaring. just let them enjoy their lives while you enjoy yours.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because they're trying to impose their religion on others using the government.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I want my religion to stay as much out of politics as possible. Looking at what happened to the Evangelicals, church and state should remain separate for not just the good of the government, but of the church as well. While better education is partially why religious belief has fallen off, a huge part of it is the fundamentalists coming off as psychopathic hypocrites.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are not representative of Christians.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And Christians are the majority, if you have a problem with that, you need to frick off, Shlomo.
            It's not anyone's fault that you israelites are incapable of indepently building a functioning society.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            But OP's post is about asking people to prove Christianity is real, thus showing he actually does care more. If he cared equally, this thread never would have been made.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            OP's "debate me bro" post is pretty cringe, but the point in the meme is solid.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you angry with Lono?

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    He says as he posts this same thread for the 15th time.

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >r/atheism tier threads
    the frick has happened to this board

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Utter respect and a bit of fear

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    no i won't

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm atheist.
    Brain damage, you say? Or is it lazyness?

    Especially given how there's a plethora of gods.

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's a paper thin difference between believing a universal consciousness and a universal father.
    Too bad atheistgays and christgays don't get the difference.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There's a paper thin difference between believing a universal consciousness and a universal father.
      Meaningless statement

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        This difference is what makes a religion either a true spiritual schoolor a mere k-selection propaganda system

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think this Lono fellow is a satanic demon. So you think God is a satanic demon? Isn't this a contradiction in terms? Don't you atheists take pride in your logical skills?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >So you think God is a satanic demon?
      Yes.

      >Isn't this a contradiction in terms?
      No.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're an atheist but you believe in satanic demons?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I believe Sauron is a satanic demon
          >heh, so you believe Sauron really exists!
          Christians, lol.

  17. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    i love these cringe 2000s memes. Never stop Dawkins gays

  18. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    don't you get tired of arguing about the same stuff over and ovet again

  19. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheist = person not interested in acquiring new information. her only interest or purpose is to mock divinity and weaken people's faith

    I'll obviously not waste my time with you.
    Atheism is a disease.

  20. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can’t convince you that God exists, because you have a BELIEF that He doesn’t. You have no proof for this and assertion without proof is faith.
    So you have faith in something different. I can’t convince you. You believe, just like a religious believer except you believe in the non-existence of the thing rather than the existence of it.

  21. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like how everyone has avoided the original question entirely and has moved on to arguing if any god could exist at all. The question is about Christianity specifically

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because the OP didn't make this thread to be convinced, he made it as bait so he could laugh at stupid Christians. He wouldn't be purposely inflammatory if he wanted an honest discussion.

  22. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you see atheists seething about Polynesian deities on message boards 24/7?

  23. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your mom dying.

  24. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >try to prove
    not how it works

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