Post Christ-kino

Didn’t knew that macho man Randy Savage was a devoted christian

Attached: spurdo chrsitan.png (1680x1646, 198K)

The film that destroyed atheism

Attached: B42A277C-7682-49E8-B1A8-DC95AF01B681.jpg (314x445, 39K)

It's designed to be irrefutable, and is therefore non-scientific. It's literal nonsense.

Hmmmm

Attached: russells teapot.jpg (1920x1080, 159K)

Absolutely seething

Nah man that movie’s arguments are weak.

How so?

Its true, but its never feasable to prove something like that doesn't exist. To prove god is real you have to look until you find him. You get to one data point and then you're good. To prove god doesn't exist you have to scour everything that exists. You have to look literally everywhere to prove he isn't anywhere.

But it's true. For example, "the world is ruled in secret by invisible undetectable hitler demons" is irrefutable, but is not taken seriously.

>disprove a fairytale made up by pedos
yeah na I'm good

Attached: 1472070039972.jpg (800x705, 86K)

All the stuff about the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant, since proving he was real doesn’t mean he was also divine. He gives no evidence that Yeshua was anything but an eccentric preacher. It’s like saying Islam is true because we know Muhammad was a real warlord.

This comic couldn't be made today.

Yea Forums slaps this shit down with alacrity every time the christfags (and pretend-christfags bring it up). It's a logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.

The religious are the ones making the claim (that god exists); thus they are the ones who have to provide proof of god's existence. That's how it works in the rational world. Instead they dodge any attempt at doing so by claiming that it's the atheists who have to provide the evidence (that god doesn't exist) - in other words prove a negative.

Attached: lf-burden of proof.jpg (790x487, 78K)

You guys want to hear an atheist joke?
Lmao

Because christcucks don't listen to logic, what's the point

Protestant flick
Catholic KINO

But the movie also addresses the divinity. He looks at the eyewitness accounts and the lives of the apostles who went on to found their own ministries

based ironic christianity poster

Attached: c5c88462fa927433aa1dbf4fd4abc757.jpg (720x720, 64K)

legit kino coming through

Attached: MV5BMjA4ODA2NjAxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTUzOTA4MDI@._V1_.jpg (1382x2048, 973K)

Attached: C0AD03F7-0277-4591-8631-87B05680F81D.jpg (353x334, 25K)

Irrefutable

athiests have never won an argument

Attached: main-qimg-6e845d81e9e63b47e10d517caef56363-c.jpg (602x395, 65K)

The “apostles” who have been proven to have written their accounts decades, in some cases a century after the events they’re describing? The ones who completely contradict one another? The movie picks and chooses the apostles it wants but ignored the contradictions and historical analysis.

Attached: 1270000603813.jpg (1031x692, 74K)

Pascal’s wager doesn’t work. You can’t make yourself believe something you don’t actually believe. It’s just not possible.

trips confirm

why does every single one of the christ tard movies look like some after school special garbage.
I bet the first christ tard that makes a religious art house film is going to become like the scorsese of that shit heap religion

There were supposedly like 15 messiahs who performed miracles, died, rose from the dead, and then ascended into heaven during those times. It was simply the literary trend of 2000 years ago.

Christcucks have never had an argument to begin with

Oh sorry by apostles do you mean canonized Saints that have had all their miracles and truths verified by sources both inside and outside of the Vatican? Those apostles? The apostles that played a role in creating the church? Yeah, I trust them. You're a fucking fool if you don't, no offense bud

>The “apostles” who have been proven to have written their accounts decades, in some cases a century after the events they’re describing?
I was more just referring to their lives and actions, founding their own ministries and claiming the man they met was God.
>The ones who completely contradict one another?
You don’t just throw out entire sources because there are some contradictions

"The first sip of a glass of natural science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God awaits you."
-Werner Heisenberg

Attached: ahem.jpg (600x681, 79K)

pascales wager doesnt work because it assumes everyone worships the same god.

the mentally ill blind and demented judge called the demiurge. AKA Yahweh

But the Christian God is the only real one

Worthless until you expand it to cover everyone's beliefs. What are your odds now?

Pascal himself refuted the wager when it got destroyed by his fellow philosophers and mathematicians in his own lifetime. Funny how the religulous never seem to bring that bit up.

Attached: expanded pascal's wager.png (1685x1930, 260K)

Is there a gnosticism where satan is the badass anti hero who goes against the demiurge after having turned his entire existence into a weapon to go up against an overwhelming foe and thats why he seems so mean? I sometimes humor that thought.

This but unironically, if you've ever met a Protestant or Episcopalian they have nothing but evil inside of them

>Atheist guy gets hit by a car
>Christian man comes over and converts the man on his dying breathe instead of calling 911 like a normal person
>This was a thing to be celebrated in the movie

If anything that movie just makes christians look like a bunch of petty assholes

To niggers chaotic bloody hellholes is normal so why move if there is nothing wrong with the place?

So I’m just supposed to trust the Vatican’s word? Where’s their proof?
There are massive contradictions which greatly undermine their credibility as accurate sources. Which one is accurate? How can you possibly know? There can only be one way it went down. And them claiming they met God on earth does not prove he actually was.

That’s a very moral thing to do. If someone’s dying, you should ensure they accept Christ so they can go to Heaven

>So I’m just supposed to trust the Vatican’s word? Where’s their proof?
In the Vatican libraries, maybe some day you can stop being a godless atheist loser and afford to visit them and see for yourself

They have irrefutable evidence of Chtists divinity? Why haven’t they shared this and converted the world? If it’s real proof why is it hidden away? Have you seen it?

The actual best religious movie

Attached: blues brothers.jpg (268x300, 23K)

Attached: atheist awareness week.jpg (499x663, 139K)

>If anything that movie just makes christians look like a bunch of petty assholes
Perfectly put. Go look into Pure Flix.
>pureflix.com/about
>crtl+F "Jesus", or "God"
>zero results
Hm, wonder why that is.

Attached: 1529191896374.jpg (568x447, 37K)

>here are massive contradictions which greatly undermine their credibility as accurate sources.
Not for most historians they don’t.
>Which one is accurate? How can you possibly know?
By corroborating the events described in them with each other. If all the gospels say certain things the same, you can assume it’s probably true. That’s what’s done for other historical sources.
>And them claiming they met God on earth does not prove he actually was.
Of course not, but these men not only knew Jesus personally, witnessed him after his death, and went on to preach his existence. Why would they do that if they didn’t believe what they saw was true?

I believe it still holds the record for sending more cars to heaven than any other production.

Attached: paranormal distribution.gif (300x440, 15K)

>You don’t just throw out entire sources because there are some contradictions
Look up the Council of Nicea. When they were forming the biblical canon they threw out lots of people that disagreed on the nature of Christ.
These people were in charge of forming a lot of the teachings of the church and got to decide what the Apostles said.

But keep believing your illiterate savior actually managed to write the book himself.

They do actually yeah, in their guarded vaults. As for why they haven't shared it, that's none of your business. Proof be if need be.

Except all these documents were probably written much later, several beyond the timeframes of their supposed authors. We have no reason to believe any of the gospels were written by the apostles themselves. It’s the same story written several times with significant variation. This is my point, there’s no outside basis for any of it. Hindu and Islamic and Buddhist texts are just as credible.

Is he actually working on the sequel yet? I remember hearing he wanted to make it

People believed in the guy at Jonestown.

Yes a massive meeting of church minds threw out things that were wrong. I’ve never claimed that Jesus wrote the Bible you tard

Considering that they make these movies on shoestring budgets I wouldn't be surprised if they made the bulk of their money through tax loopholes and rebates and sell the rights off to other christian groups for a couple of extra bucks.

You’re so full of shit. If they had proof they’d have converted us all by now.

From what I've read, God's Not Dead honestly doesn't sound like a bad movie.

The main 'villain' is essentially an embarrassingly cringe atheist that got that way due to being upset with his mother dying leading him to making fairly rude arguments against anyone having any sort of faith. Kevin Sorbo plays the guy and does a compelling job of it.

Attached: cults-vs-religions.jpg (400x610, 73K)

>We have no reason to believe any of the gospels were written by the apostles themselves
That’s true, and accepted by most church scholars.
>It’s the same story written several times with significant variation.
Yes, reinforcing it’s credibility
>This is my point, there’s no outside basis for any of it.
What do you mean?

Count me in too

Attached: mystery man.jpg (150x200, 5K)

Waste time converting an arrogant godless prick like you? there's only one place you will end up, and that is burning in the hottest circle of hell for all eternity praise His name.

To be fair, I jumped the gun a little bit. Looks like they have two 'about us' pages.
>pureflixstudio.com/about-us/?cbg_tz=0
This one is much better. Still, the message in God's Not Dead and some of their other movies makes it clear they don't 'get it'. They scare people away from Christ more than they do to bring them closer imo.

Sorbo is the highlight of the movie, but his plotline takes up about 30% of the movie. The whole film is really a series of vignettes. GND2 has a much better script

Why can't atheists define atheism?

Attached: il_fullxfull.1817021423_hpgh.jpg (2730x2048, 987K)

I can disprove god exist
>*pulls down pants*
see
god wouldn't give a man a small penis

But they decided things were wrong because it went against what they believed and then established what they believed was right.

These weren't just random people they threw out. They were Christians who had scripture that led them to believe what they did.

>The supposed god is infallible; thus his word is truth; and his son is the living embodiment of that word?
>The ever-so fallible apostles write down their recollections of JC's life. Very few of their accounts actually match, in terms of events or what the message was about.
>A council of equally fallible people some centuries later throw away most of what the apostles wrote and reduce it's total size.
>In this modern world, some 14 centuries later, we're all supposed to accept that the surviving (re-written and re-edited at that) words are the entirety of god's message?

That's two whole removes from any supposed truth to begin with - let's not get into the constant rewrites and schisms since. Overall it appears to be more about misusing the written word to fabricate an illusion of veracity.

Attached: man and religion.jpg (525x653, 173K)

Got ur definition write hear.

Attached: i fucking love science.jpg (600x408, 27K)

>But they decided things were wrong because it went against what they believed and then established what they believed was right.
Yes...and?

Dios mio...

wouldnt an eternity of anything be hell?

Attached: wfrewgrewgre.png (1587x890, 481K)

What do you mean? The dictionary definition of atheism is just a lack of belief in a deity or deities, that's all there is to it

it was a different teim

4/5 for me

do you have that fotochopping version of this pic where everything looks slightly weird?

shouldn't*

This always scared the shit out of me as a kid

TBF it is more of a recruitment poster than an actual warning.

Attached: earth ages.webm (1280x720, 2M)

Define diety

Serious answer, it's a modern example of tribalism in first world countries. Hood communities; as in whatever block they happen to be born on, are very tight knit and everyone knows and interacts with each other on a daily basis. They spend 20 or more years interacting with this small, interconnected group of people and it causes them to seriously plant their roots in the hood. They don't see a reason to leave because they have everyone and everything they could want in that block.

a deity is often referred as a god or goddess

A synonym is not a definition, brainlet

retard

Are atheists really this retarded to the point where they can't even refute a simple point?

I pity you. I'll pray for you.

nice larp, faggot

They're still the same thing though and you already know what a god or goddess is so why do you need it defined?

>he can't define it

Attached: dont-think-about.jpg (1280x719, 125K)

A deity is the creator and supreme being