*destroys your faith*

I’m not quite sure what you were attempting to say here or if you even had anything to say at all

>From here it is possible to understand the final aim of the whole movement as Teilhard sees it: the cosmic drift moves “in the direction of an incredible ‘mono-molecular’ state, so to speak, in which... each ego is destined to attain its climax in a sort of mysterious superego”.34 As an “I”, man is indeed an end, but the whole tendency of his being and of his own existence shows him also to be a creation belonging to a “super-I” that does not blot him out but encompasses him; only such an association can bring out the form of the future man, in which humanity will achieve complete fulfillment of itself.

…with a guy like Dawkins, you always have to pause because he knows so little about subjects outside of biology. In certain sectors of society, there's an awed reverence of Dawkins because he is a very learned and eloquent defender of Darwinian evolution. He has explained it beautifully and written about it very well. We often forget that the guy is a biologist, however, who actually doesn't know a whole lot about anything else.
His knowledge of history is poor; his knowledge of philosophy is abysmal; and his knowledge of theology is non-existent. When Dawkins wanders out of his field, he thus makes uninformed and often idiotic statements. So while in some ways I feel indignant about what he says, I also feel almost a sense of pity for him. The poor fellow is wandering around in intellectual fields where he is such an innocent.
-Dinesh D'Souza

>Dinesh D'Souza
lmaooooo you're taking the opinion of this guy seriously?

Attached: image.jpg (788x1080, 201K)

>attack all deities
>get mad when religious people defend their existence

>ad hominems
>not a single refutation of any of dawkins' points

>Dawkins made points

you have to be 18 to post on this board

Isn’t this an ad hominem

philvaz.com/apologetics/DawkinsGodDelusionPlantingaReview.pdf

insults =/= ad hominems
and all ad hominems are not necessarily fallacious

Wait was Benedict a Teilhardian heretic? Lmao.

*makes you shit, piss and cum in your bed*
nothng personnel kiddo

Attached: William_Lane_Craig.jpg (1500x2254, 698K)

How can atheists even compete?

I am an atheist but I don't agree with the tone dhoudl encourage others to be one too.

Most people need something to follow and if religion is not there to lead them, they will blindly follow the state into the abyss. This is what is happening in Scandinavia. Nietsche wss on the right track with his comments in the beginning of Beyond good and Evil.

With that said Dawkins has some good book, everyone should read the Selfish Gene.

Perhaps if they continue to use the same lines of "good debater but shitty arguments" and the usual attacks to him such as "awful person", maybe one day they could after a few millennia into the future.

Who dis

The man Dawkins feared to debate

youtube.com/watch?v=6VHiUj_3JTI

>jejune
nice word user

Attached: 1566074452878.png (657x527, 160K)

>tfw William Lane Craig is referenced in your philosophy textbook

Attached: A65983D4-EF27-428C-8808-BC6F15747CF7.png (914x654, 452K)

The comfiest of feels.

He's implying Christianity is pagan because of the Trinity or the Saints or both.

I actually got to attend some of his lectures. It was great, but WAYYYY above my head as a Yea Forums MA lol. Also im not sure if I agreed with him in some of his panel substitutionary theory of atonement...

If you're going to have an atheist manifesto, there are MANY far better than Dawkins' meme (heh) of a book. From what I've read of it, it's incredibly poor. I was once an atheist/agnostic and even then I thought this was mega cringe

Why is everyone scared of him? Hitchens and Dawkins both refused to debate him and Harris says that "[Craig] put[s] the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

Lol where do you go to school? Retard Academy?

Community college

youtu.be/U1UtRnGn5hc

No but seriously he is a world famous philosopher

Ftr, is not laughing at you

***** , I mean. The laughter is not directed towards you

John Lennox outclasses Dawkins time and time again

youtube.com/watch?v=vO-ORIUcUOY

Attached: 54646456464.png (189x159, 47K)

did he destroy my faith before or after he got on the plane with the pedophile epstein, and did who knows what with that creep? hmmm, "atheists dont need God for morals", didnt really play out well did it.

It doesn't even take a genius. People just assume he's smart bc he's British and plays biologist well.

youtu.be/Hv2U2Xp2Nu8
>"oh God..."

He was joking. Imagine being this btfo a Chad is happy, emotionally fulfilled, successful and, now, married

Attached: 60332234_168883470794901_8366201529278922752_n.jpg (757x758, 81K)

the catholic church's insistence on demonizing the condom has done unmeasurable damage to the continent of Africa and facilitated unwanted pregnancies and the spread of AIDS and other STDs not to mention their crusade against homosexuality all the while protecting and enabling pedophilic priests who preyed upon young boys

it was actually high time someone got outraged over the obscene levels of hypocrisy and corruption going on at the highest levels of the largest denomination of Christians on earth

>literally the man who shuffled around pedophile priests so they could avoid real justice and continue preying on young boys
thats a hard pass bud

>"molecules and atoms are sentient" guy
you know he's a con man, right?

I know

*teleports behind you*
*eviscerates your thesis into a bloody pile with facts and logic*

nothing personelle

Attached: download (2).jpg (475x475, 24K)

the only thing cringier than new atheist polemics is the christian response to it

Attached: 41kjE0CJKRL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (331x499, 24K)

I don't think trying to ban condoms makes sense. It makes more sense to try to propagate the correct understanding of human sexuality, which is that it is only permissible between a husband and wife, open to the possibility of procreation. If you're dealing with a bunch of people that are going to run around fucking each other like savages, then banning condoms is just going to hurt them and they're going to be sinning either way.

Damn that is brutal.

read this

Attached: 81MfKE2AvAL.jpg (1591x2560, 481K)

oh no a man in his 60s/70s has a brain fart when under pressure
i guess that proves god is real

As a Christian I think people are overreacting to this, it’s a simple slowdown. And he got it right anyway. It’s not like he didn’t know the title.

Proves his point about Christians is bs

>"he only retroactively proved his own point long by looking like a fool!"
Cope harder, gaytheist.

Attached: 1532466804528.jpg (713x713, 145K)

Yep

Posting pics like that one shows you're nothing more than a LARPer and not a Christian.

I am about to drop the hardest truth for you binary oafs to contemplate.

Christians and Atheists are essentially equivalent in their stupidity.

*new age atheists

No, all atheists.

*Asks deceptively simple question and refutes atheism once and for all*
Why do you so much want there not to be a God?

Attached: 1554294280554.jpg (800x600, 73K)

did this guy make sam harris sweat or something?

>read kierkegaard
>death to heretics

Attached: 85fc919979e6ea4b18a46dc3233ab8d127581118f4810d27fe4df6e6554ff0d8.png (1000x800, 469K)

>reading Anglo proselets

That is a good image.

>the catholic church's insistence on demonizing the condom
Is the only thing keeping the west barely up.

>There are multiple lolatheists threads each day. Each has no argument, 100% ad hominem won't accept people's arguments etc etc. Te You sat best links to literature
>BUT DARE YOU OPEN A CHRISTIAN THREAD!
Fuvking pathetic. This site is abysmal.

>Dawkins
>points

Religious people dress up their beliefs in logical garbs but they are convinced they already have all the answers. Faith was never based on reason in the first place. Faith is a deeply emotional thing, you either feel it or you don't. It is like those old "can't unsee" shitposts or learning a language once it is engraved into you, you can't simply decide not to know what a word means or how to read it. Once you become convinced that something is true, something undeniably contrary to what you think has to happen in order to let go of your previous belief and even then it might take some time, or it might never happen. I am well aware that this could also be said of secular beliefs as well.

Religion is suprarational.

Baseless belief is not beyond rational, it is irrational.

ITT: Yea Forums full of underage idiots badly defines faith

why can't atheists define atheism?

Attached: why.jpg (253x199, 4K)

>sleep
>destroys the idea of soul every 14 hours

Attached: AJGP-04-2019_Focus-Hamilton-Feature.jpg (760x446, 97K)

Those sorts of atheists won't debate anyone who they feel is capable of exposing their retardation. They saw what happened to Peter Atkins.

youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

>William Lane Craig goes first: The question of God's existence is of interest not only to religion but also to philosophy. Now Mr. Hitchens has made it clear that he despises and disdains religion but presumably he is not so contemptuous of philosophy. Therefore as a professional philosopher I am going to approach tonight's question philosophically, from the standpoint of reasons and argument.
>record scratch
He goes on to make solid, philosophical arguments, quoting mathematicians, physicists, discussing the Big Bang and so on, while the audience of millennials yawn and their eyes glaze over.
Enter Hitchens:
>god amirite?
>crowd goes wild
It's a fun watch.

>he doesnt dream

i love how you characterised nonsensical philosophy as logic and reason

>conflating surface-level consciousness with the soul

Attached: femlaugh.jpg (359x478, 47K)

Would love for you to point out what he said that was nonsensical - just in his opening argument. Doesn't take long.

rem sleep only lasts ~90 minutes

not really, he is implying that christianity is politheistic (which actually was considered a problem at the beginning of christiniaty, check out arianism and other doctrines that were “heresy”)

i saw it a long time ago.. i ain't wastin my time on that fuckery again
enjoy your thread

when will religiousfags understand that although there’re some good philosophical arguments for the existence of god, they don’t justify theism (only deism) and don’t point to any particular religion

where is my soul consciousness user

In your butt lmao

Attached: 1532747754193.jpg (470x470, 31K)

As a black man, MEGA CRINGE

bbc or gtfo

This book made me into a theist

That's not an argument on any level. Besides, since it's literally the entire basis of all faith ("I want to believe"), I'd be careful waving it around at others.

I know it makes you feel better to believe that, user (just like faith), but it's still bullshit. Check the studies: over and over, religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence.
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf
digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/26/are-religious-people-really-less-smart-on-average-than-atheists/
asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

Who cares. Networking is where its at, it doesn't matter how smart you are if you never get well connected. Religious people will always pick someone from their flock over a qualified outsider every time.

cringeworthy thread.

there are better books to backup your atheism, this one is junk.

Not even remotely what's being discussed here, user. Try to keep on topic.

Actually no he got it wrong. The point was that in fact you shouldn't judge peoples beliefs on their knowledge of silly things-- which, in fact, HE was doing. It's not an ebin proof for Gods existence.

Hitler Youth Pope?

>the abyss
As an atheist who just moved from Kansas to Denver, and holy shit is the abyss real. Are there any books that say, "ok, there isn't a god, but we are better off pretending there is so our society doesn't turn into degenrates"?

>god is this
>god is that
>and god is this way
>god would do that
>and that
>and this would never do
>this is how god is

>source: Dude trust me

>God doesnt exist

>source: Dude trust me

So in your brain, the contingent atheist claim based on all known reality and observation ("I have never seen or heard any compelling evidence of a deity, so I'll assume they don't exist until things change") is somehow more arrogant than the opposite one ("not only do I believe in a deity despite zero evidence, I also believe I have specific detailed knowledge of its nature and desires and history because of a book borrowed from some ancient superstitious goatherds, and that all faiths aside from mine are wrong")? Okay, user. Cheers.

Attached: PantiesforRansom01.jpg (1000x750, 96K)

Catholic here. I can read things like Tao te Ching, Analects, Upanishads, Dhammapada, and the Quran and derive value from those works even if I don't follow those religions.

Is there any actual value in reading the God Delusion if I will never be an atheist?

such an unfunny bait thread thank god it's gonna help reach the reply limit with me posting

his only argument is "the universe must have had a cause, therefore god, thanks for coming out everyone". pathetic.

Are we seriously talking about this book in 2019? I'm no fan of God but this book is shite.

Attached: images.png (239x211, 8K)

i don't know how someone can be intelligent or educated and believe in a mythology(religion). you believe in a 2000 year unverifiable story and you use it as a narrative to give you meaning but it's a story. it's like basing your life around harry potter

Attached: ECPlzjYU8AINl_s.jpg (960x960, 503K)

Well, it's no repository or ancient wisdom or philosophy (to say the least--his abuse of Aquinas and such is very dense), but it does make a strong case refuting the idiotic notion that one must have religion to have a moral code or empathy, and might give you an idea of some of the legitimate complaints that can be made against church influence on the state, and why so many people actively hate organized religion. That's if you care about seeing the other point of view.

Based derrière poster and based derrière

just as jupiter and the roman pantheon wasn't true, christianity is most likely not true. the same people who defended the roman pantheon came up with christianity and it's doctrines. are you gonna believe liars?

catholic church peddles condoms through africa under the table
whats damaging africa is economic exploitation by "belevolent" liberals

christianity is just larping at the end of the day. you're pretending something is true when it's not to give your insignificant life meaning.

Thanks. It's my ex (a friend left her underwear at our house, so we sent her a ransom note with pics of my GF wearing them).

Attached: PantiesforRansom03.jpg (1000x750, 73K)

to make a point on my post from earlier, it should be noted that I think only christian children should be raped which is why I believe atheism is good, catholics raping atheist kids is contra to this phenomenon which is of course not going to help push "atheist rape" as a new sexual revolution/cultural movement

self-identified atheist women tend to be less slutty than christian women based on personal observation

inb4 you point to the average woman(who is not a self-identified atheist)

christians like to point to the average whore(who is a christian) as an example of an atheist woman.
we live in like majority christian country and it's still degenerate. christianity must not be working.

Attached: 乃木坂46「ウチの彼女は、最高かよ！SEASON2」 堀未央奈 篇｜サッポロ一番 � (1280x720, 2.45M)

Stupid troll

Based and full-fat milk pilled

sorry accidentally replied to the wrong person! meant to reply to the person who said the legalization of the 0 age for consent was wrong!
ah such a silly mistake, my bad! ahaha ~

But that’s true

sorry haha, mean to say I'm a faggot, oopsie!

Ahem. Protestantism doesn't work. But that doesn't mean all Christianity is ineffective. Also, there's pretty much going to be nominal members of anything (not just churches)

Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker convinced me intelligent design is real

>He's never astrally projected out of his body, had his friend or sibling write something down in the other room, phase through the wall and read the writing, then enter back into his body and correctly say what was written in the other room
It's not too late for you user, all have the power.

remote view me

>Nevertheless, lots of people have never really accepted the theory of evolution. The most obvious of these are religious fundamentalists, many of whom openly dispute the theory. A more important group, however, consists of the numerous persons who say (and think) that they accept the theory of evolution, but who in fact shrink from accepting the implications of that theory. Among those unwelcome implications are:

>1) Human beings are animals: very unusual animals, to be sure, but nevertheless animals. In origin, we are not fallen angels, but apes arisen

>2 ) Evolution is a completely amoral process.
>3) A person’s physical capabilities and limitations are strongly influenced by his genes.
>4) A person’s mental attributes (i.e., his individual abilities and proclivities) are also influenced by his genes — not rigidly determined, but strongly influenced. The notion that we are entirely products of our environments is therefore false
>5) The observed behavioral differences between the sexes are strongly influenced by our genes — again, not rigidly determined, but strongly influenced.

>Even less welcome, perhaps, are these other implications of the theory:
>6) Whenever two populations within a species are reproductively isolated, they will diverge from each other genetically. If they are in different environments, this will occur by natural selection; but it will occur by genetic drift even if the environments are the same.

>7) The process of evolution did not stop with the emergence of Homo sapiens, nor with the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens (the branch of that species to which all living humans belong). Rather, evolution has continued and has produced visible differences between human groups whose ancestors evolved in different regions.

>8) There is no reason to suppose that the visible differences we see between the regional variations of human beings are the only differences that exist between them. On the contrary, it would be very surprising if that were the case.

explain how it would be any different to say "the universe had a cause therefore aliens" or "the universe had a cause therefore we are a simulation on a computer". the conclusion is not supported at all and as such is just wild conjecture

you are woefully uninformed

Nominal Christianity is not Christianity. That's true for any belief. Women for slutty because of the sexual revolution, and that was preceeded by decades of liberal atheists influencing the education system.

this is a part of the centrist consensus now. lobster man won't even dare say that god is real.

>my ex
That's a fine booty you lost.

>it's like basing your life around harry potter
If it was written 2k years ago they probably would.

Where do you live? I will be capable of it, as well as describing accurately what you look like and what your house is like, but I need to know where you are.

>I will be capable of it
Doubt it, in the end it will be "hmm I'm not getting anything" or "you're too closed off and are projecting a mental shield" or some such thing, but you're welcome to try. I'm from Illinois, but if I give you an address you could just use google maps. Set up the procedure and I'll go along with it.
Things I'm not interested in you guessing:
Age: because I'm on Yea Forums
Race: depending on the neighborhood
Sex: too easy
It would have to be something disturbingly specific to convince me.

Put a card onto your dining room table, face up, in your house. I will tell you what card it is, but I will need an actual precise adress of where you live. I live in NYC so there is no possibility of e getting to Illinois from here. Also, I will need to look up where in Illinois your town is etc. so that I can fly to it when I project.
I don't care about your age, race, or sex. Those aren't convincing. Put the card face up and keep it there, tell me where you live, and I'll be able to do it either this afternoon after I take a nap, or tomorrow morning after I wake up and project out using an indirect method.
It is important to mention though that remote viewing has been tested and replicated by the CIA multiple times and you can easily find documents on the methods and results online (they are declassified).

So any of the 52 playing cards? 1/52 chances don't seem too bad. I don't think I'll be giving you my address though, but I can put it outside and give you precise coordinates with a picture of the location if you want. I can send it to your email, since the thread will be archived.
>It is important to mention though that remote viewing has been tested and replicated by the CIA multiple times and you can easily find documents on the methods and results online (they are declassified).
The guy who investigated and interviewed those people became convinced that it's not possible:
skeptiko.com/86-the-men-who-stare-at-goats-science-with-jon-ronson/

Attached: standard-52-card-deck.jpg (1024x469, 128K)

Richard Dawkins
> ethologist, evolutionary biologist

Dinesh D'Souza
> political commentator, conspiracy theorist

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion December 1g_snd.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheist

nature.com/articles/28478

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

Attached: mooney1.jpg (630x750, 73K)

Still waiting for you to debate William Lane Craig, Professor Dick Dawkins (seriously, look it up—Dick is short for his name, Richard).

Didn't I (the genius Christian physicist) BTFO you hard enough in the other thread? You want more of this long dick inside you?

Literally a no-name outside philosophy of time

Based schizo poster

>Catholics are bad because they are responsible for spreading of AIDS
>Catholics are bad because they fight against homosexuality
user, I...

Read the full sentence, pederast

>No but seriously he is a world famous philosopher
He really isn't

so are you going to try it? because I would need your email to send the location to, since there's a good chance the thread will be archived or deleted by tomorrow and then you'll have no way of responding.

Theres no easy way to "prove" that he's famous, but he ultimately is. His books are among the most cited in the philosophy of religion, for instance. Also "The Best Schools" has named him one of the most influential philosophers alive.

Not a Christian, but I'm curious as to your criticism of Kierkegaard. He always struck me as someone who actually cares about his faith.

If you look at Catholic populations throughout Africa you'll find that they actually lower incidences of STD's. Maybe it's time to rethink things.

Catholic church has too many homosexuals in it, vying for positions of power like the narcissists they are.

Why use big words when they don't add anything? Do you value sounding smart over being understood?

>His books are among the most cited in the philosophy of religion, for instance.

Which is a fairly niche field these days. And even then, he's not among names like Plantinga.

When I think of "world famous philosopher" I think of someone like John Searle, WLC is obscure by comparison.

That's just cope
The church has always been filled with sexual deviants. After all, only a mentally disturbed individual would dedicate his life to religion

What does a sane and well-adjusted individual dedicate their life to? Dilating?

Business, science, law, medicine. You get the idea
Truly disturbed individuals, though, dedicate their entire lives to obsessive thinking about trannies, even in completely unrelated contexts

He's not the most famous, no. But he's definitely up there

What do you make of people who believe there is a god but cannot grasp the nature of the god?

Attached: 1566767740321.jpg (900x1200, 243K)

Not even close, dude
Hell, most people who know him do so from his debates rather than his philosophical contributions

men are slutty too incel
it’s simply easier for women to be slutty, so it’s more noticeable

How can you possibly prove that?

What arguments does Dawkins make? The only decent one I can remember against God went something like

>If God created the universe then God must be more complex than the universe; but the more complex a thing is, the less probable it is; so God isn't very probable

But why would God have to be more complex than the universe in order to have created the universe? Surely this only works if you argue from analogy with human minds, which are more complex than the things they create. (If they aren't, then the analogy's no good.) But human minds are apparently the result of a long evolutionary process, which has led to their being complex. If God exists, he isn't the result of any such process. Why should we expect him to be complex rather than simple?

Also a lot of that book was (I remember) dedicated to an evolutionary-psychology account of how we acquire moral beliefs. It was interesting, but didn't have anything to do with whether God exists or not.

The problem with that argument, and a lot of atheist arguments is its just arguing from within the worldview of the atheist, he's just treating God as if its a hypothesis in a scientific theory when it's nothing to do with probability. Either God is necessary and absolutely must exist or he isn't.

>But why would God have to be more complex than the universe in order to have created the universe?
I dunno, god can be whatever you want it to be, simple, complex, depends on the mind thinking him up

Cringe social shaming aside it's pretty stupid to believe in fake bologna meant to control you. Religion is a spook.

Imagine caring about whether or not there is a god while im over here slamming mad pussy all day

I've been following philosophy of religion for years and that has been my experience so far

aids doesn't exist and was used to try an control africas population, by getting them to use condoms.

Believing in spooks is an even bigger spook than religion.

based

Blessed trips and based post

I'm not sure how we would know if someone had correctly grasped the nature of a god...

Attached: PantiesforRansom02.jpg (750x1000, 83K)

Yes, 'tis true. Still, life goes on.

Attached: PantiesforRansom04.jpg (1000x750, 105K)

You know what? You're right on this point actually. Unverifiable Personal Gnosis strikes again.

Though logically, if there was a correct way to grasp the nature of a god, said god would probably also make their presence known in a human-readable way, at least I think so?

Attached: 1566428577997.gif (590x558, 2.82M)

I'm not sure. One of our great problems is theology is blithely conflating "x force that made the universe" with "human-graspable deity that cares about us" as if there was any reason one would in any way suggest the other. Do you know or care if an ant understands you? The related issue is the Xtian insistence on Yahew being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, even though that's absurd and all mention of him in the Bible directly contradicts that idea. So the two concepts exist in a very uneasy tension.

dawkins BTFO'd

Why? Who would have a problem with any of these ideas being plausible? If they're backed up by real science and not racist pseudo-science junk from the last century, bring it on.

No, they're arguments specifically against atheism

>all posts ITT calling Dawkins a biologist
He's actually a zoologist

this is not the correct understanding of human sexuality for sure

Atheist "intellectuals"

Attached: file.png (985x173, 30K)

"""scientists"""
cringe & yikes desu senpai

Attached: ideas.jpg (1000x800, 132K)

>It has been remarked that when one passes among the patients of the psychiatric ward, he encounters among the several sufferers every aspect of normal personality in morbid exaggeration. ... As one passes through the modern centers of enterprise and of higher learning, he is met with similar autonomies of development. ... The scientist, the technician, the scholar, who have left the One for the Many are puffed up with vanity over their ability to describe precisely some minute portion of the world. Men so obsessed with fragments can no more be reasoned with than other psychotics.

Attached: syjnlnnl7jgion9pjcsx.gif (800x450, 2.29M)

Attached: FD020AC5-8834-4693-A74F-CB6FCB6DE32C.jpg (737x517, 35K)

I own a book--a published serious book--where a Christian "scientist" argues that the fossil record can be explained by how well each creature swam and when they sank during Noah's Flood (heavy dinosaurs sink first in the mud, mammals and humans paddle longest). Are you really sure you want to start this battle?

It is fascinating just how much humanities "intelectuals" seethe at the very existence of STEMfags and blame them for everything wrong in the world, despite just watching a news channel for 5 minutes would easily prove that STEM isn't nowhere as culturally influential as their paranoid delusions led them to believe it is.

>Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

Good, scientific innovation has literally killed the planet, if science was crippled beyond belief my drinking water would not be full of microplastics and Dugongs wouldn't be endangered.

>claims he's capable of remote viewing
>isn't capable of it
classic

Attached: Preferred_official_head-shot_from_James_Randi_Educational_Foundation.jpg (1099x1237, 561K)

Wow you're totally wrong

Never particularly liked dawkins's 'rekked christians' approach. For me it was Nietzsche that convinced me to become a nihilist.

I think it's just because low IQ niggers can't keep their snake in it's cage.

okay mister big words man you're clearly smarter than everyone else here with your big words that most people never heard before so that must therefore make your arguments superior by virtue the of big words.

The other user never gave me his address

very cringe and fedorapilled

atheism: disbelief in god and other deities
As simple as it gets.

Guess you never had faith to begin with, kiddo

41.700451, -87.992002
There you go, the card is stuck on the other side of the 'exit' sign, it's next to a particle accelerator, hard to miss.

Attached: Untitled.png (1178x1786, 3.83M)

He's hellbound just like Nietzsche lest he repent. Hemoglobin is the most complex molecule out there and so are the amino acids and other proteins but they just happen to randomly assemble in some muddy primodial soup. Atheism also takes a bunch of leap of faith on fundemental aspects of creation. It's ironic because it denounces religious faith but it also requires a similar sort of faith to believe their explanation for the wonders of creation.

Attached: 1560480415713m.jpg (1024x784, 248K)

He also lamented on twitter the fact the UK is being flooder with foreign heathens whilst totally forgetting that he is a posterboy for shilling against the very religion that was holding the western civilization together for the past two millenia.
Romans 1:22 kjv
>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Attached: 1554452041249.jpg (639x819, 75K)

>religiosity
>innovation
ebin

>you're both wrong
>no further explanations
great post user

I liked this book when I was 14 and about to receive my confirmation but refused. Then I grew up and now I’m in theological seminary working towards my MDiv.

Calvinist brainlet

One more time. Being an agnostic atheist just means I don't see enough proof that any deities exist, and choose not to believe in them. Period.
It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution, Big Bang, or any other theory. It doesn't mean I read Dawkins, worship science or even think the world is round. I can believe in ghosts, UFOs, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, and Atlantis. The only f**king requirement is that I don't believe in any supernatural beings that I consider holy or sacred. I don't have to explain the fossil record or the history of the universe. It doesn't mean I hate religion, or churches, or want to see the end of anyone else's faith. It has nothing to do with whether I give to charities, try to be moral or ethical, or obey the law. It doesn't mean I think life is meaningless, or care what anyone else believes or thinks. I just reject theist explanations as sounding silly to me, and the rest is personal. If I see anything to change my mind, I'll let you know.

Yep. Folks use the word "God" as if it only meant one possible thing, instead of a million possible things. What about monotheism? What about beings so powerful they seem omniscient and eternal to us, but they're just on a different level? What if the known universe is one atom in another one inconceivably larger one? What if our planet is a sentient organism? What if we're a fucking experiment by mice? The arrogance is in assuming that we could even conceive of the real situation in totality, if we knew it. Christianity can't even keep its own doctrine straight (claiming God is omniscient and omnipotent, then writing dozens of stories which show him as neither), let alone claim to be the only option besides a complete lack of divinity.

>Instant salvation
Protestants make fedorafags look intelligent

if the world looks like he doesn't exist then why the fuck should i believe he does?

wait till you understand it

everything here is objectively true

the only thing you're capable of is ignoring posts

why has every civilisation on earth had its own religion?

Well, they're incredibly useful. They allow a hierarchy of authority figures to claim supernatural knowledge and power to better cement their claim to be a ruling class. They provide an unanswerable justification for any law or rule that helps deflect the real reasoning (see above). They provide a supposed ultimate authority to answer any questions that the local knowledge/tech level is incapable of answering (and when a Galileo comes along, the churches are none too pleased to be contradicted), and so on. Foucault's pastoral power discussions help point out how helpful religion is to keep societies working smoothly--at least for those in charge.

Attached: slatepentagram.jpg (1321x1242, 504K)

Based schizo Philip K. Dick had infinitely more interesting thoughts on religion and the origins of the universe than anything Dork-ins has put out.

>I wasted my life in worthless myths and doomed myself to a life of poverty

My condolences

Can you let me know at [email protected] whether or not it worked?

Is that graph actually stating Pakistan has a more innovative population than USA, Great Britan, France, and Italy?

He only used one uncommon word. Are you retarded?

Protestants are basically Catholic light.
Romans 4:5
> But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Ephesians 2:8-9
>8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast

youtu.be/tSHJdoZd-zE

Attached: 1564248332305.jpg (475x300, 56K)

Dawkins is the next stage on the midwit litmus test after Harry Potter.

yeah, I did, you didn't give me your guess

The smegma tome of the wojak hordes. You can nearly smell it from here.

Important distinction Galileo didn’t contradict Jesus though, he contradicted the men.

Jesus did not create a ruling class he destroyed the concept of one. He flipped the script on everyone. None of the disciples went on to rule at all. They went to preach Jesus’ Word, sold all their belongings, healed the sick. Jesus claims power through love mercy and forgiveness. Yet His Word stands today as 1/3 of the world believe in Him in some form.

Attached: 54F66C87-BC3F-407D-8D19-81CDF92DA899.jpg (800x450, 84K)

Faith cannot be dismantled by science. I thought that was the point of faith in the first place.

I didn't say a word about Jesus. We were speaking of every organized religion in every country in history. What Jesus did or was like or if he was real is basically unknown and irrelevant, and the people who "believe in him" hold endless convictions that are nothing like his teachings, and are openly contemptuous and hateful towards people who have much in common with Jesus and his followers as they appear in the Gospels.

Attached: IMG_8257.jpg (533x800, 106K)

This argument has never made sense to me. Why mustn't God have a cause? Why is God allowed to be timeless and eternal but the universe isn't allowed to be timeless and eternal? If I say the Universe just exists and was not created by a deity, theists cry foul and in the same breath insist that God just exists and was not created by a deity.

He hasn't received the Holy Spirit
SAD

>b.bu..but those protties didn't eat the crackers or talk to the man in the box!

Kierkegaard is the first pill you take to cure fedoraism.

nine of clubs

Attached: Charlesxavier01.jpg (336x400, 34K)

*restores your faith

nothing personal kid, it’s time to grow up.

Attached: 1D1571B9-666E-4E9C-B5BD-BEE5DA980826.jpg (284x415, 103K)

I'm not a big fan of this book or any of the fine tuning arguments because even if you accept everything they have to say there's still room for rational agnosticism, and to me that makes the entire project a waste of time. The 5 ways are where it's at because if they're logically valid then a rational person must accept them as true.

>muh clock needs a master
Literally a child

because life is absurd and if we didn't make up stories to explain the absurdity away we'd simply kill ourselves.

So because people misunderstood or misuse Christ, you remove a possibility of a belief in the Christ that was who He said He was?

Attached: works do matter (2).jpg (1920x1080, 705K)

Attached: The-Science-Delusion.png (228x276, 32K)

here’s sth for you to read about the author of that shite
samwoolfe.com/2013/07/the-problem-with-rupert-sheldrake.html
scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/
lmao even his ted talk was banned for disinformation

i remember picking it up to read ironically. i read around the first 50 pages and could count at least 3 attacks against reason. dawkins is definitely a brainlet

Attached: 1565308672675.jpg (250x241, 7K)