Who killed Christianity?

It's not about the amount of believers.
The faith is dead, people believed that we were the centre of the universe and God created us.
Now we know that we are just smart animals on a rock, and life is just an accident.

>we
A third of the world's population disagree with you. What you mean, I think, is 'why is Christianity dead to me?'
Obviously it's not dead to the people who believe it

Kant

>bacon
hummmmmmm

Attached: bacon.jpg (300x303, 35K)

Prove it.

Christians killed Christianity
1. Endlessly persecute Europe's greatest thinkers through a corrupt theocratic state
2. Be backwards retards who attempted to ban the Greek classics because they were so smart it made Christian theologians look bad
3. Tear Europe apart based on the defense of its childraping theocratic state
4. Its constant agitation against science deplatformed their own worldview
And guess what, as soon as people weren't FORCED to be christcucks and get brainwashed by the Torah, they didnt

So wait, do you believe in Darwin’s theory? Or do you ignore it becuase it contradicts your sky daddy?

Christianity did, by losing relevancy. People who wish for spirituality and asceticism convert to Buddhism. People who wish for a traditional life style and an ordered life convert to Islam. People who seek truth become scientists. What do people need Christianity for?

Community centers? There are secular alternatives. Someone to talk to? There are therapists. Refuge? Secular alternatives.

The clear corruption in the higher echelons of christian institutions does not help either.

Darwin struggled to reconcile his Christian beliefs with his theory of evolution iirc.

No, I believe in artificial selection, I do not believe the natural universe ascribes to that law of natural selection as posited by the evolutionists

me, i killed it

capitalism. i genuinely think its impossible to be a good christian in the developed world. Are none of us elected anymore?

the french revolution

Why?

different user but evolution is an excellent observation but fails to explain how humans emerged. what i mean is that humans like all animals arose through selection and variation but its impossible to describe how any organism is the way they are. Theorists say humans arose because of bipedalism, opposable thumbs but its poor science because its a "just so" explanation without evidence. There are plenty of bipedal animals and chimps, pandas have opposable thumbs for instance.

Oh, so the old
>well it might be true for animals, but certainly not for ME

Jews

no its true for any animal. basically, i accept evolution as a scientific sound theory but its unconvincing for me and ive learnt evolution properly from basic bio subject at uni. At the end of the day, to quote the guy who cucked the protagonist in a serious man, " I’ll concede that it’s subtle. It’s clever. But at the end of the day, is it convincing?"

Stirner with his dialectical Egiosm.

read this book and shut the fuck up

Attached: file.png (324x499, 354K)

It's not really dead. And neither Galileo nor Darwin did as much damage as Luther or Henry VIII.

When do you think the child abuse began in the Church? It's an interesting question.

Alternatively, don’t read this book, and continue in your correct interpretation of the specious reasoning of natural selection

>i know better than the people who know how it works
plugging your ears doesn't make it go away. look up the dunning-kruger effect btw

If you regularly observe a heavenly body in the sky and from that you conclude its movement. Your model predicts its movement in the future and your predictions hold true. Is that not scientifically sound? Despite there being gaps in which you can't see the heavenly body?

Began? Probably in some form for as long as the church hasn't been persecuted, but in the organized coverup sense probably only a 20th century thing. And aside from the scale of the institutional coverups, it hasn't been any worse than whenever another school system has similar coverups, with similar to worse rates of abuse.

So you think they've been covertly hurting little children since 1AD?

I’m not saying that. I’ve read the Origin of Species. It is an embarrassingly idiotic book

user, did you ever hear the story of 'the man who had power but no accountability?'

Attached: Did_you_ever_hear.jpg (877x707, 536K)

>"It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless."
-Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man

(There is quite a bit to be said about the historical narrative of the positivists, the sort of thing you hear in Carl Sagan. It is a highly oversimplified and, in some places, false telling of history. Galileo for example had almost no influence on the discourse of philosoph. Figures like Descartes and Francis Bacon are far more significant than Copernicus and Kepler. The beliefs of scientists, the deism of Newton, the Catholicism of Lemaitre and Mendel, are ignored. The role of medieval scholasticism in preserving the ideas of Epicureanism, Platonism and other classical theories is largely ignored.)

Right. Atheism is a recent phenomenon.

For this reason, Charles Darwin is more of a satanist than any of those pursuers of truth you’ve listed in your post there. Darwin even advocated for genocide as well

I don't see how evolution or heliocentrism disproves the existence of the Christian God.

Evolution disproves creationism.

And evolution as a theory is a bit more watery than people realize, considering the inaccuracy of fossil findings and various other reasons.

Heliocentrism is something that is verifiable, and perhaps we don’t know some other things about the universe we should, but heliocentrism certainly has a lot more definite evidence that makes it hard to refute.

I don't think it's fair to call the others "pursuers of truth" and then Darwin a "Satanist." He was not trying to deliberately mislead the world or something.

Darwin's work has been heavily verified. Recall that genetics and DNA were unknown when he wrote, and how thoroughly understood the very mechanisms of mutation and transmission of traits are, to say nothing of skulls of h. ergaster, h. hobilis, h. erectus etc.

If you mean to oppose Darwin in terms of his own game, you have quite a mountain to climb. Sure, certain mysteries remain in his context: the origin of the sexes from asexual reproduction, the question of the unit of natural selection (the organism, the gene or the species?), but tossing the whole thing out is crazy.

Much better to spend your time trying to connect ancient ideas such as imago dei to what we now know is the primordial history of man, and thereby refuting the eugenecists and the Peter Singers of the world.

Christians

So is everyone on Yea Forums retarded or is it just this thread?

This theory was already presented and accepted by Muslim scholars in the medieval times and Islam did just fine.
>Siddiqi(2) both have stressed the point that his idea of evolution provided material to all the evolutionists. According to al-Jahiz, inanimate elevates to plant level and animals are evolved from plants. Man is an evolutionary stage of animals. He has discussed struggle for existence, adaptation and animal psychology (3) that make the pivot of Darwin's Theory of Natural selection (4).
>Al-Jahiz was a disciple of al-Nazzam (d.845) whom Sarton has alleged to hold evolutionary idea. Influenced by his teacher, he became a staunch Mu'tazilite and founded a separate sect named after his name "al-Jahiziah".(5) He propagated his religious and philosophical ideas. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal has highly appreciated al- Jahiz for his evolutionary ideas and has regarded him the first evolutionist in Islamic world. He writes: "It was Jahiz (d.225 A.H.) who first hinted at the changes in animal life caused by migration and environment generally".(6) George Sarton in "Introduction to the History of Science" narrates that the "Kitab al-Hayawan" of al-Jahiz contains the germs of many later theories: evolution, adaptation and animal Psychology. (7

>Evolution disproves creationism

Nonsense. It embellishes it. It flashes out the major events of creation with intermediary steps.

The theory of evolution was around for a long time before Darwin. He just amounted an enormous amount of evidence in favor of the theory.

>Darwin's work has been heavily verified
Absolutely not. As a matter of fact many who even ascribe to the THEORY of evolution refute various points that Darwin raised within his book.

I also would like you to point me to any -ANY- evidence of evolution other than bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. You won’t be able to, it doesn’t exist.

History stops around 6000 years ago as well, oddly enough, around the time it is posited the world began through the Holy Bible and Quran

If these theories killed the Abrahmic religion then new religions would simply have been born to replace them. But they didn't. The death of religion in the West can attributed to the materialism that prevails throughout the West. Previously only a pursuit of the elite the struggle for material possessions has all but deprived man of spirituality.

Muslim or Christian scholars accept many different things. It doesn’t make these things true. As much as you want it to be, there is still a dearth of evidence for anything ‘evolutionary’ going on in the natural environment

"Spirituality" is a meaningless word, anyway.

Who let Christfags run amok on our pagan board?

In Europe, the death of religion was due to religion being tied to political power. As those sects of power died off, so did the religion. Materialism, and the NWO can be felt harder in Europe than it can in, say, Midwest America, the Bible Belt, or New England

I'm not making an argument for or against evolution. It's just more honest to say that I'm not a scientist and I don't quite know yet. I'm simply saying that evolution killing all religion is a misguided theory.

Fair enough.

I will say this: I think it’s intelligent to believe in artificial selection. After all, we verifiably killed all the dodos. Natural selection is a different story entirely, however

But Islam is literally a political handbook. Muhammad ran a state for crying out loud. I guess the Muslim rulers were just better at doing it.

>Earth was made for Humans 6000 years ago, and Humans always were as they are.
>Akshually anatomically modern humans are about 150000 years old and derive from monkey-looking stuff
>W-w-well it doesn't disprove creationism!

Annnnnd I'm out. Abort theead!

>I also would like you to point me to any -ANY- evidence of evolution other than bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. You won’t be able to, it doesn’t exist.
AHAHAHAHHAAH
AHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
AAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
*breathes*
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH

>>>/Reddit.com/

"Consciousness" is just a meaningless word anyway. It's just neurons, after all.

AAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAAAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAGAGAHAHAHAGAGGGAGAAGGAHHAAHAHHAHHHHHHH

The Bible literally states the humans were giants who lived for hundreds of years at one point.

And they have found skeletons of giant humanoid figures. What do you know

Which evolution clearly confirms.

this. Nietzsche can say that God is dead, but it's Kant who killed him.

This is Yea Forums thread. Either talk about the correlation between secularism and evolution or don't. Discussing if evolution happened is a /sci/ topic

No. No no no.

See, this is where you fucked up, for me evolution didn’t happen at all.

Lol, no it doesn't retard.

Then go over to /sci/ and start asking them these questions. Until a mod deletes this thread, we will discuss this shit all we want

Besides OP posted a picture of literature anyway.

Humans killing all the Dodos isn't artificial selection. Artificial selection is when an animal is near hardy-weinberg equilibrium and people decide to breed them for certain characteristics.

Look up Soapberry bugs. It happens on a very quick timescale but don't get tripped up over micro evolution and macro evolution. Evolution is simply a change in allele frequency over time. The only evidence that would change your mind about this would be the geological equivalent of a mountain forming.

>Humans killing all the Dodos isn't artificial selection
Technically it is.

Look up the Black peppered moth. Another example of artificial evolution.

Basically, artificial selection has nothing to do with breeding, but it can be called breeding sometimes.

While I believe in evolution that isn't a good allegory. It would be similar to a mountain forming if the mountain branched out into seven different paths and started walking.

>magical book says stuff happened without proof
>Well I guess that's true
>mountain of evidence proves that didn't happen
>Well that's just lies
???

Not him, but the original point is
>I need to experience firsthand evolution happening (and not just viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics because that somehow doesn't count)
Which does make
>that's like saying you won't believe in geology until you've seen a mountain form under your eyes
a valid comparison.

I didn’t say the mountain of evidence per. You’re assuming there is a mountain of definitive evidence for evolution while the evidence is specious

Point taken

There's a mountain of evidence to prove that humans were never giants who lived for centuries. There's no evidence in favor.
Maybe don't bring up retarded examples.

There’s The Holy Bible and The Quran. Maybe have some faith in God

The centuries thing is questionable but we could certainly have been giants at one point.

Thales

user, I can see your problem. It is that you are very dumb.

Hey that's rude

I guess I agree with that.

>When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit
I don't really believe in free will, but this seems mostly like an individual choice and practice, and you can experience faith, worship and love in any modern religion, it takes a little practice is all. I don't think the catholic church is iredeemable at all, and it's possible to blame the institutions too much.

The abrahamic religions are so unaesthetic why does anyone uphold the meme?
zoroastrianism is /patrician/ if you must have a religion. it's all the best parts of xtianity before the jews stole it, anyway. xtianity is literally a regurgitation of a ripoff of the real thing.
cross symbolism is admittedly aesthetic though, but the rest of it is garbage.

Islam is extremely aesthetic.

Attached: IMG_4851.jpg (236x368, 18K)

The only aesthetic parts of islam were stolen from persian culture. If you /his/ you would know this.

>Shiism is Persian

Attached: IMG_4841.png (420x420, 5K)

>History stops around 6000 years ago as well
Wew. Quality bait.

I bet you think that an omnipotent, eternal being really took 7 days to make the world too, huh?

Attached: 1549503376705.jpg (1784x1024, 517K)

>have some you tell ypu what to think
Nah, I'm good

>History stops around 6000 years ago as well, oddly enough, around the time it is posited the world began through the Holy Bible and Quran
You blew your load to early with your bait. work on it, newfag.

Wow, a namefag post that isn’t completely horrendous. How did that happen?

catholics

Is it really fair to blame Darwin & Galileo for killing Christianity. they uncovered information. Christianity killed itself over that information.

>liberalism is Christianity

Huh

They're directly related but yes, Christ is the most important aspect of the new covenant.

>Now we know that we are just smart animals on a rock, and life is just an accident.
>know

Modernism, not even once.

>2. Be backwards retards who attempted to ban the Greek classics because they were so smart it made Christian theologians look bad
Where has the Catholic Church done this?

>not realising that the creation stories are symbolic not literal
>not realising that Darwin’s theory only explains the middle and has no answer for the beginning and therefore doesn’t discount divine intervention
Brainlets like you give Christians a bad name. If you say stupid things that it makes it easy for atheists to refute it.

Macroevolution is still bullshit though. No transitional species.

>bUt iT's A MeTaPhOrE

Luther's Protestant Reformation preceded the Scientific Revolution by only decades. You might need to look earlier, the zeitgeist was already changed by Galileo's time. The Copernican Revolution played a part in this too but I like the theory that Christianity killed itself with the Reformation.

>I don’t actually know why your wrong, I (read) this book but don’t understand it well enough to explain it to you. I remember thinking it was really clever was I was reading it though have so I’m sure it disproves you

>my god is not dead, he’s surely alive
cringe

How come a quick googling comes up with a boatload of examples then?

>symbolizes =/= metaphorical

Stop

Go google if aliens are real

The Qu'ran never said Earth is 6000 years.

>Protestantism as a mistake.
Have you not read anything else of that period and before? Like the Legend of Gilamesh, Homer, Rig-Vedas, etc, they all write in a poetic and symbolic way. Even philosophiers were more so than they are.

Is this the power of religion?

Your ignoring my point, you can find sign posts to any answer you look for.
Just because google gives you answers to question doesn't mean it's the truth.

Evolution still points to a point of creation, a position that has no answer other than a creator.

wrong. it's Celsus, Against the Christians.

Attached: goal-posts-moving.jpg (640x426, 157K)

Alright söy.

There is absolutely no goal post moved, you fucking retard. Evolution is still dependent on a multitude of contingent causes.

Humans hunting a species to extinction is absolutely natural selection. Humans are apex predators. Just because humans define their own influence as 'artificial' doesn't mean that it's not nature.

Stop projecting and worshiping materialism for there is no evidence for it.

Yea Forums is filled with pseuds and bait. You either need to contribute to the shit fest or just leave. There's nothing to gain from this place.

>Christianity did, by losing relevancy. People who wish for spirituality and asceticism convert to Buddhism. People who wish for a traditional life style and an ordered life convert to Islam. People who seek truth become scientists. What do people need Christianity for?
Just because people are retarded pseuds doesn't mean that Christianity is irrelevant or any of what you said is valid.

Nice propaganda. All of this is wrong and without any substance.

The Bible

I am almost never on Yea Forums, came from Yea Forums, but holy shit this is the first time I've seen someone else post that.

Cope harder christcuck

christianity killed itself by freezing its myths beyond the point where they can be unfrozen.

if the system, refined by the ancient greeks, libyans, palestinians and irish, and perpetuated by present-day africans, of keeping divine myths abreast of the times, had been maintained in the western world for the last two millennia, all the major social and political changes that have meanwhile occurred would be wholesomely incorporated in christian dogma. for the united states, god would now appear as a sage, democratic, always accessible, president; assisted by his son, an industrious vice-president; by arch-angels, acting as his secretaries of state; and by angels, as representatives of various sectional interests.

When they banned clergy from being married

HES LIVING ON THE INSIDE ROARING LIKE A LIONNN

>not being allowed to get married turns you into a pedophile
how does that work?

Specifically Secularised American Puritan Calvinism. Read Moldbug also.

t. brainlet mong

Attached: 50797017_509606146367605_7888281186605203456_n.jpg (720x912, 70K)

>calvinism
Thats gonna be a no from me dawg

Hes right.
Post one time the Catholic church banned any greek literature

Where are the Paradise Losts, the Sistine Chapels of this generation?
How come Christianity is so shit today?

They've been doing it for at least a thousand years. There were popes pre 1000 C.E. that were known to have orgies with little boys. The church is only getting flak with it now because they are a shell of their former power.

Do you mean great works of art? 2001: A Space Odyssey is up there with those pieces of art and its thoroughly atheistic in nature.

Cultural Marxism did. At least in America, that is.

>How come Christianity is so shit today?
>Did he mean to ask about atheistic works?

I'm not a history expert but it had something to do with the medievals having only a fragmentary copy of the Timaeus left, everything else was lost I believe, because they burned it.

You believe the Catholic church, the Church that upheld wisdom of greek philosophy burned texts?
Where is your evidence?

You know there are certain medieval stories that point to pedophiles in positions of power in the medieval church. These actually are "Pious" tales but can certainly be indicative of that sort of relationship going on...

St. Lawrence, patron saint of cooks who was burned alive was accused of this by Pagan Romans. St. Patrick ditto...

Televangelist pls go.

Even the Catholic Church doesn't antagonize Darwin these days.

That’s bullshit. People antagonize evolution all the time. It’s still a theory that is constantly amended 24/7

Julian too!

He became an atheist when he discovered the existence of that wasp that reproduces by inserting its eggs into another insect and have its offspring devour it alive from the inside for days on end.

I thought Jews were responsible for abrahamism in general. Are they also responsible for the end of abrahamism ?

He described himself as an atheist actuality

>evolution is bad because the outdated first book on evolution is bad
>modern reevaluations don't matter

user is recommending you a much more modern book, stop deflecting.

No

I meant to type 'agnostic' but I was thinking about the word 'atheist' in my head and so I typed it by mistake.

My bad

Child abuse is a very old practice and often wasn't punished depending on who was doing the deed.

Iirc one of the first guy condemned for abusing (and murdering and torturing) children was Gilles de Retz, a former comrade in arms of Joan of Arc. And it was only because he opposed the then-forming French state, so it was actually a politically-motivated trial. There had been rumors of children disappearing around his castle for years and people didn't act on it until he became politically inconvenient.

Imagine being this much of a historically illiterate pseud

neither. they are just a product of their time. the evolution proposed was proposed by darwin in a circular argument (evolution is caused by natural selection which is caused by evolution (there's a book by an evolutionist claiming this). Modern evolution is NOT darwinism. There are plenty of evolutionary theories that revolve around a sense of progress and are teleological (see osborn's aristogenes for example).

im majoring in biology and my final paper will be on darwin. I'm also a devout catholic.

Yea Forums is only good for very specific recs and top-notch literary banter with some cheeky lads.

Though we're getting less and less literary, not to say top-notch.

>The theory of evolution was around for a long time before Darwin.

Not in the form Darwin gave it. But they were precedent indeed, including Lamarck that Darwin himself credits for inspiring him.

Actually the "Earth is 6k years old" propaganda is just Jewish misdirection. Every man of knowledge worth his salt will tell you Earth began 500 years ago with the Protestant Reformation.

>After all, we verifiably killed all the dodos

How is that not a case of natural selection ?

>b-but natural selection has to happen without the intervention of other species

Nothing in the theory says it should, and it's not realistic anyway since species are constantly interaction with each other.

Your problem is assuming that what humans as consequence of their social organization cannot qualify as a biological factor. That's entirely misguided. If we extinct ourselves because we failed to stop a virus that spread worldwide thanks to air travel that's still natural selection.

Islam also had high and lows. In a lot of the Middle East Islam was in some respects much weaker 60 years ago than it is now. And Christianity is still very much alive in Southern America and Africa.

Good.

I have faith in the God of Antiscriptism. It is a religion that holds books to be evil and all Scripture and textbooks to be elaborate lies.

There's a limit to how big an human can be before he becomes too heavy to stand on his feet. But if you consider 5m tall men as giants that would work I guess.

>I will just read the bible instead

Also it survived Galileo quite easily and was already ill at the time of Darwin.

Only way to settle this is to read the book so do it faggot.

>protesting so that you don't have to read
>on Yea Forums

>Evolution still points to a point of creation

Not really, virus a little more than big self replicating macromolecules, bacterias are a lot like more complex viruses. It's not so easy to explain abiogenesis but it's not like it seems completely unreasonable either. Trying to explain life with a creator on the other hand would require first that we know how to tell an unlikely but not thorouhly impossible event from a event deliberately provoked. At this point we don't even know how we would to that.

> Evolution is still dependent on a multitude of contingent causes.

Like any other scientific theory.

> People antagonize evolution all the time

People =/= the Catholic Church

> It’s still a theory that is constantly amended 24/7

Like most theories there is a lot of handiwork to be done, that doesn't mean the whole paradigm is to be thrown out.

>inb4 comparisons to epicycle theory

There was an easy alternative in the form of heliocentrism. What the easy alternative to evolution ? Creationism doesn't count, it's an actually ahrder alternative that only displaces the problem to having to find evidence for the existence of a conscious creator, and look how hard it is to explain consciousness in a mere human brain.

They have easy access to children because of catholic schools and churches being their mentors, counselors and teachers. I'm sure there's plenty who have sex with women but that wouldn't make the news headlines.

>he doesn't know Genesis narrates the life of the first couple of homo sapiens (aka the ones who ate from the fruit of knowledge)

Christianity was not killed: for it died on the cross. Chimeras were made from pieces of its corpse, but each was doomed from birth. They appear as heroes to most, mystics to some, and tricksters to few. While they share their Fathers earthy fate, they share not his heavenly fate: for Satan is their true master and he will give them their just rewards.

Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world. Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world's population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020,

Real surveys and statistics say atheism is on the decline worldwide. Sorry atheists but atheism is not on the rise nor is it winning. It's still the minority and a declining one at that.

The Pew Research Center's statistics show that atheism is expected to continue to decline all the way into 2050 with a continued growth of religion. Other research also shows a huge surge in growth for Christianity in China which is currently the world's most "atheist" nation because of the atheist communist government suppressing religion, the research suggests that China will soon become the world's most Christian nation within 15 years.

This is simply history repeating itself: Christianity prospered in Rome back in the ancient era when it was suppressed and it still grew in the militant atheist soviet Russia when it was suppressed there only a century ago with the majority of Russians today now also identifying as Christian. Just goes to show that atheist suppression of religion still doesn't stop religion.

Sources for the legion of whiny /Redditor/ fedoras that will no doubt show up it this thread:

pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm

>telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

... I'm chinese who is using VPN right now.
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT
ARE YOU FUCKING SURE ABOUT THAT
theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/24/china-cracks-down-on-christmas-celebrations
Like how desensitized are you.
What you really need to do is "It should not be done to force a man to be an atheist."

>The enlightened West is quickly crumbling under hordes of Mohammedans
>hUrR aThEiSm Is DeClInInG
No shit retard. So what?

It should probably be noted that almost every single major figure in the atheist movement is Jewish. You could make a compelling argument that atheism is specifically being pushed by Jews in today's society, and they seem to largely be targeting western Christians and only them.

For example, Sam Harris, Chapman Cohen, David Silverman, Michael Newdow, Gregory Epstein, Sherman Wine, Bill Maher, Eric Kaufmann, and of course, Richard Dawkins's mother has a Jewish surname and was stated to have lived in the only Jewish suburb of the city she grew up in. But he hasn't explicitly named her religion.

But that's only a tiny part of the list. We could discuss the Jewish atheists who aren't pushing atheism so much as atheism-enabling political views like Marxism. For example Soklonikov, Trotsky, Deutscher, Lenin, Uritsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Sverdlov.

And what about atheist Jewish public entertainers that constantly run down Christianity? We can go ahead and recycle Bill Maher here and also include Jon Leibowitz, Stephen Fry, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, Daniel Radcliffe, Larry David, David Silverman, and... I'm sure I'm close to the post cap, so rather than just name the rest of Hollywood, you get the point.

PURE COINCIDENCE though.

Neither.
Scholasticism and rationalism watered it down to a shallow intellectual curiosity instead of a religion.

next you guys are going to say that the flood really happened

Kant just hid him in our minds. In some category

Flood stories were very common. The tale about Noah's Ark is part of the genre and also a response to the genre. It's clear the people at the time would have known about flood stories and would have had certain expectations about the content of a flood story, expectations we do not have at all because our interpretive context and milieu are fundamentally different. Hence this atheistic misconception that the story was somehow "taken" from someone else and passed on as original work, or some other misconception based on the same inability to consider a text's historical context. The Biblical flood story is part of the genre of flood stories, but the difference is that this story is a response to other flood stories and transmits a truth the other stories did not have. And by truth I don't mean a literalist historical account for 21st century positivists who have no understanding of genre and context at all. Of course, this also applies to some uninformed Christians who insist on reading the book of Genesis as if it were a literal encyclopedic account of creation

Everything killed Christianity because it’s ridiculously stupid and we managed to escape its grasp on the minds of people and let reason dictate our metaphysical narrative, if anything Newton is the greatest influence in that regard.

>as if it were a literal encyclopedic account of creation
Now boy are you implying it ain't?

typical Hebrew Oy Vey b/s: some local bad weather, and they spin the narrative into some kind of demon-driven apocalyptic natural disaster holocaust schlock.

are you retarded? you do now that Newton's science is considered a footnote w.r.t. his spiritual and hermetic writings, don't you?
by himself, no less.

I can’t tell if this is an ironic fedora post, brainlet trolling, or an edgy 12 year old.

Edgy 12 year old.

>Galileo, the "father of the scientific method"

Attached: 1523193695057.png (1920x1090, 1.48M)

As that guy was saying, yes.

The flood really occurred

Oi mate why do you like physics and Darwinism and logical positivism so much? Buy you dinner the shag you? It's just a hobby nerds made up it's useless

prefer freud
> not being important in your own mind

You aren't anywhere near the post cap and your whole reasoning is sloppy.

>listing off names constitutes a compelling empirical argument

That's not how you do it. Show me how much more likely a random jewish public figure is likely to push atheism and/or rail against christianity than a non-jewish atheistic public figure or simply a non-christian public figure.

You have to do that over the past few centuries as well. Also remember that a lot of damage to the standing of religion has been done by people who were not atheistic.

>>listing off names constitutes a compelling empirical argument
It is when you can't present a similar list of non-Jews who are as prominent and who are as fervent about their hatred of Christianity as their Jewish contemporaries

Calvin, but he didn't know it at the time.

Christian values were on life support during the renaissance but were revived under the name of marxism.

Hegel.

Sure bUddy

Attached: 1551238771839.jpg (1500x1000, 142K)

me

>being this pseud

people do not hate Christianity for being moral they hate Christianity for not being moral enough. we now live in an individual hyper-morality society.

Hegel was a Christian mystic

>implying Christianity didn't win at the end

The most important aspect of Christianity was the change of values which happened 2000 years ago until our days and counting, we may not go to mass and pray anymore but that's not important those things are the shell of Christianity. morals and values are the core and they are more than alive today.

>I’m also a devout Catholic
Sweet

He did

Attached: 1024px-Utrecht_Weenix_Descartes-5a42e6e0c7822d003709499c.jpg (768x1002, 107K)

If you’re seriously asking I recommend the book
Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science where it is thoroughly explained