File: 70s-spiderman-meme-10.jpg (29 KB, 480x372) Image search: [Google]

29 KB, 480x372

>>677330705

File: 1386975418318.jpg (66 KB, 494x481) Image search: [Google]

66 KB, 494x481

SAGE REPLY

The OP is an atheist who posts as a Christian. He doesn't abandon the thread. He posts in /b because there is no user ID. He then can answer as a Christian or an atheist. He likes to take the opposite side of the argument to get people all riled up. He admitted it several days ago. He is an east coaster too.

This thread isn't real though. It's full of the OP saying shit on both sides of the issue that is designed to create a response (i.e., BAIT).

If you want to talk about religion, there are other places to go where people actually exchange intelligent thoughts, not here though.

The KKK announces a march in a city. All the anti-KKK people come out and scream during the parade. Usually, it's a dozen or so KKK members and hundreds of protestors.

Want the KKK parades to stop? Ignore them. Let them walk down empty streets. Without all the protestors and cameras following the clash, there would be nothing to validate their message. Without an audience, the marches would stop.

Don't be the audience. Don't give the OP validation by enabling him. Ignore the thread and let it die every time. He'll be bored and go away.

SAGE REPLY

File: Capture34.png (212 KB, 600x417) Image search: [Google]

212 KB, 600x417

>>677330349

>>677330349
this has been posted everyday for literally months possible a year now wtf is wrong with you dude

>>677331643
>implying there is only one OP

OP, are you arguing pro-christianity or pro-deism? If it's the former, your an idiot, otherwise, I'm with you. In any case atheists (meaning people who deny the possibility of a god, not people who aren't sure) are idiots.

>>677333148
>implying you have any knowledge of the issue.

What's the self classification for somebody who isn't religious but doesn't necessarily give much of a shit about the big bang concept of nothingness either?

>>677333603
>define knowledge

what issue, that there are multiple OPs or that there is a god? I know that there are multiple OPs, because i've posted this thread before and I'm not the OP of this one. And i know there is a god, because i exist.

>>677333951
Fuck off troll.

Maybe everything was actually nothing. And there time actually existed but what the hell is time if nothing exist and therefore nothing happens. So nothing basically instantly became something.

>>677330349
Straw Man. Literally No credible scientists have ever said the universe came from "nothing", nor do they think it. Have you ever even thought about "nothing"? By definition it can not, has not, and will never exist. Just in case any dumb shit actually believes any intelligent person takes this position.

>>677334152
Nice argument. Typical for an atheists, close your eyes and hope everyone who disagrees goes away.

Do you know why this thread is posted over and over? Because so far atheists haven't made a single solid argument.

>>677334389
It's not an argument against science, it's an argument against atheism. Believe it or not, most rational thinking scientists aren't atheists. Even the guy who made the Big Bang theory believed in god.

The true fallacy here is made by atheists who make a claim to authority by saying 'scientists' believe there is no god, therefor it's true. And that's not only a fallacy it's only false for most scientists.

>>677335255
*even false, not only false

>>677330349

Uhm, yeah... Look up the Law of Conservation of Mass, and re-think this stupid question

>>677335618
>implying the laws of physics apply if you talk about the creation of the universe
The laws of physics are part of this universe in the same way time and space is. It doesn't make sense to apply them to the universe itself. There is no before or outside the universe and there is no law of conservation of mass.

Just a simple example: the universe expands faster than the speed of light.

>>677335255
>most rational thinking scientists aren't atheists

Lol no. Actually look it up and you'll find about 70% of scientists lack belief in god(s). That percentage is even higher when you get into the harder sciences like physics. That the guy who started the Big Bang theory proves nothing except that it's possible to compartmentalize your thinking.

>The true fallacy here is made by atheists who make a claim to authority by saying 'scientists' believe there is no god, therefor it's true

Also not true. If anything, most religious people try to use weak arguments from authority, like you just tried to do with the originator of the Big Bang theory. The status and overall intelligence of a person doesn't prove shit. Let the arguments stand for themselves.

Lastly, I'm an atheist, and don't think the universe "came from nothing". I don't see a reason a prime mover is necessary, as one hasn't been shown so far. It's entirely possible existence is infinitely generative and without a first cause. We don't know, so don't try to push bullshit you can't possibly know.

>>677336129
That the guy who started the Big Bang theory believed in god*

File: 560.png (634 KB, 600x778) Image search: [Google]

634 KB, 600x778

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

File: 1458961367076.jpg (113 KB, 566x910) Image search: [Google]

113 KB, 566x910

>>677330349

>>677336110

my god, you are an idiot...

>>677336129
An example is not an appeal to authority, neither is it cherry picking.

When i'm talking about 'most rational thinking scientists' I'm talking about the people in history not only the people today. I agree that a lot of people today are brainwashed into believing in atheism. The fact that there are still scientist who accomplish great things just proves that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
They don't conflict or proof each other. Science just explains how something works, religion tries to explain why.
That's why you can't sufficiently disprove god. Science explains just 'how god did it'.

>>677337113
Since you can't make a point, except insulting me, i take this as a sign that i've won the argument.

>>677337158
*scientifically, not sufficiently wtf auto correct?

>>677336649
>sage
>posts picture
>thinks sage is a downvote
how is your first day here.

>>677337344

take it as a sign you are an idiot... The universe isn't effected by the laws of physics? Look genius, the universe DEFINES the laws of physics.

>>677337158
>When i'm talking about 'most rational thinking scientists' I'm talking about the people in history not only the people today

Blatant argument from authority. As time's gone on, the great minds who've made influential discoveries have tended against religion. Isaac Newton was religious, Einstein was (maybe) a deist, if that, Hawking is an atheist. All irrelevant.

>They don't conflict or proof each other

Yes they fucking do. Let me give you some pasta:

Science makes objective claims and must have empirical evidence to verify them.

Religion makes objective claims with no empirical evidence to verify them, claiming one must simply "have faith".

When science is found to be wrong, it changes to adapt to the new information, growing further closer to total knowledge. Science never claims to be infallible. NO claim is unfalsifiable.

When religion is found to be wrong, it denies it, either using rhetoric in attempts to claim it was never wrong, or ignoring the conflicting data entirely. Religion always claims to be infallible. ALL claims are unfalsifiable.

Science and religion are 2 completely different and incompatible doctrines. If you believe otherwise, you misunderstand at least one of them.

It's possible to believe in both, as long as you compartmentalize your thinking. It's called being intellectually dishonest.

>Science just explains how something works, religion tries to explain why.

>implying a "why" is necessary
>implying any religious explanations for "why" are actually true

>That's why you can't sufficiently disprove god

>asking to prove a negative
Prove to me that leprechauns don't exist.

>>677330349

You want nothing? YOU WANT NOTHING?! YOU CAN'T HANDLE NOTHING!

Our feeble minds can't even begin to comprehend the concept of 'nothing', the absence of any attribute is in itself also an attribute, therefor nothing is not, well, nothing.

Also, atheism is 'absence of belief', therefor saying they literally believe something shows your total lack of understanding that concept.

File: 1454043220728.jpg (39 KB, 600x586) Image search: [Google]

39 KB, 600x586

>>677330349

>>677337761
Sage goes in all fields.

>but not the picture field, numbnuts.

>>677337847
It's not a question whether or not the universe is affected by the laws of physics. The laws of physics can't be applied to the universe itself. It doesn't make sense to talk about it.
It's like talking about whether an ant is happy or sad. It's neither the words happy or sad don't make any sense when applied to an ant.

>>677337847
Different guy, but what he means is that the creation of the universe isn't governed by the types of physics we know and use today. It just breaks down at some point. That isn't to say that there's *nothing* that describes the origin of the universe, only that we've yet to develop the mathematics to explain it. I'm no theoretical physicist, but a big part of it from what I understand our understanding starts to break down around when the fundamental forces of the universe merge together. Looking for equations to describe that was kind of Einstein's greatest endeavor, and we still haven't gotten there yet.

>>677331643
>implying he says nonsense

>>677339699
Sage it and move on, faggot.

>>677339364

Actually, our understanding and evolution of physics, comes from the study of the universe. That's why theories change over time, as we begin to understand more and more of the universe. So no, physics do apply to everything, even all of existence. We just are slowly learning how to grasp the concepts.

>>677338064
An argument from authority would mean i imply that it's true because a lot of scientists believe it, that's not what I'm saying. When talking about god, a scientist has as much authority as an artist or an athlete.

Science can't explain everything and doesn't claim it can. Science is only a small part of Philosophy. Not everything needs to be proven in order to be considered true.

If a thing can't be proven or disproven we use razors, like occam's razor. When applying this, atheism and deism are equally valid, therefor it's open to debate.

In any case, there is the 'newtons flaming laser sword' and I'd agree if you say the discussion is meaningless. But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.

>>677330349
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH2FfGFcp-I

>>677338474

So you are an expert on ants? Tell me, how do you know an ant doesn't know happy or sad, have you asked one? This is pure arrogance and ignorance on your part

>>677330349
so everything was made by god. What was before god? HERESY! YOU MAY NOT ASK THAT! I KILL YOU

>>677340045
You realize there are different branches of physics, right? I didn't say that no physics will ever describe the creation of the universe, only that none currently exist today to describe the creation of the universe. We'll get there, some day. Lrn2readingcomprehension

You know what, OP is right. I am converting to scientology, because that is the only religion that makes sense.

April 2, 2016. The day an Internet forum rant changed someone's mind.

Theists literally believe there was absolutely nothing, not even empty space, and then there was an invisible sky person who decided to make people.

It's so ridiculous when you sit down and think it through.

>>677340249
Ants don't have a neocortex. Your reply just proves that you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

File: Donny.jpg (20 KB, 320x240) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 320x240

>>677338474
>The laws of physics can't be applied to the universe itself. It doesn't make sense to talk about it.

trying this hard, kek

>>677340540

Uh huh. And tell me oh scientist/doctor, what does the evolved brain have anything to do with emotions or perceptions of the world? For your information, all that is relative (Einstein joke there), you have no idea what goes through an ant's mind, until you ask it. Or a dog, or a bird, or a sperm whale.

>>677340920

>>677341246
No i don't have an idea, and even if i had it's meaningless to talk about it, because our words don't apply. How could i tell that the 'sadness' of an ant feels the same way as the 'sadness' of a human? I can't. It's objective and there is no way to communicate. Ergo it's pointless to talk about it.

Thanks for proving my point.

>>677341246
An ant's brain simply isn't complex enough for emotions. Dogs, cats, and whales on the other hand, you have a point. But you don't need to be able to speak to an animal to know whether or not it's experiencing emotions.

>>677330349

we do? where have we stated that?

>>677331643
cool conspiracy theory there bro

>>677341246
Can't tell if this is bait or not. How about we remove your neocortex see if you are feeling anything after that

>>677342349
atheism, just like feminism has changed it's meaning and doesn't simply mean 'not believing in god' anymore. It's an ideology now. If you simply aren't convinced there is no god, find another word to describe yourself. I suggest confessionless.

>>677342714

i haven't changed/adapted its definition to me, so it means the same thing it always did.

>>677341705

Uhm, you brought up the ant in the first place. So what point have you proven??

>>677341721

Not complex enough? Have you seen what the humble ant can do, move things 20 times it's own weight for miles, fight to death in defense of its home, wage war, kill for pleasure not food, etc.

>>677342436

Yeah, who brought up removing the neocortex? Be quiet and let the grown-ups talk...

>>677342997
ok, but don't be surprised if people think you are an idiot if you say your an atheist.

>>677343053
Yes, not complex enough. Just because their brains aren't complex doesn't mean they can't do what you've described. And just because they can do what you've said doesn't mean that they have complex brains.

>>677343053
The point that it doesn't make sense to talk about feelings, when talking about ants.
The same way it doesn't make sense to talk about physics when talking about the universe as a whole.

>>677330349
i believe sort of differently, i believe the empty space is always there infinite in all directions, it is the matter that makes up this universe that is not infinite, and beyond the boundaries of this universe there could be other universes created by other big bangs, there could be an entire forest or jungle of universes out there beyond this universe, all contained within an infinite emptiness of space

>>677343146

sticks and stones.

>>677343416
That's just retarded and you obviously don't understand Einstein. There is no space 'outside of the universe' the word 'outside' has no meaning in this context.

>>677330349
logic only applies within the universe, because its based on observation and we can only observe within the universe. so the laws of causality don't need to apply

that also means there could be a god, but probably not, and if there is then who cares? why would god care about you?

>>677343307
I'm with you on the ant thing, but saying it doesn't make sense to talk about physics when talking about the universe as a whole is complete bullshit. That the laws of physics are the same in any place in the universe is one of the fundamental building blocks of physics. And of astronomy. Without that assumption (and subsequent evidence to back it up), it doesn't make sense to try and describe anything in the universe in terms of physical laws. The universe *is * physics, and physics *are* the universe, dude.

>>677343640
you're retarded because you dont understand the theory of a multiverse

>>677343905
There isn't a shred of evidence to support the theory of multiverses, as of yet. It's all just speculation. So at the moment no, there isn't anything beyond the boundary of the universe.

>>677330349
Almost as ridiculous as the notion of a supreme being that just popped up out of nowhere and created that same shit

>>677343905
thats not what any of the theories that describe a multiverse say though

theres the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in which these alternate universes are created every time a quantum superposition breaks down, which obviously means they can't just be out there in space somewhere. Then there's string theory which says that our universe is just a 4D object in a space with 11 dimensions that may or may not contain other similar objects. we might call these other universes but they're not really 'cause the same laws of physics would apply to them.

neither of these are provavle by the way, at this point the only meaningful answer to "how many universes are there?" is one

>>677343751
one of the few intelligent posts in this thread. but you could go even further, since 'exiting' and 'being' only make sense within this universe, you could argue that applying those words to god doesn't make sense.

>>677343817
>any place in the universe
that's exactly what i mean. the laws of physics apply within this universe. and only 'within'. There is no outside the universe, there is no before or after. Even saying that 'the universe exists' doesn't really make sense, because how would you define 'existing'. The universe has no mass, has no energie etc. It doesn't make sense to apply those words to the universe itself, because they are only defined within the universe.
It's like talking about the reminder of 2.3/1.2. It's not even wrong, it doesn't make sense.

>>677343905
Multiverse theory is retarded. If you think a Multiverse exists and is real, read the answer above, and define the words 'exist' and 'real'.

>>677345216
>reminder
*remainder

>>677343307

Where is it written that you have to have a complex brain to experience emotions and feelings??

>>677343307

But, you can't prove ants don't have feelings, so your analogy is completely inane. Show me scientific proof that an ant doesn't feel, and I'll concede the universe is outside of physics

File: Ah Jeeez, not this shit again.jpg (30 KB, 450x451) Image search: [Google]

30 KB, 450x451

>>677330349

>>677345665
you are obviously either trolling or a fucking idiot. I'm not saying ants have no feelings. I'm saying the question whether or not they have is pointless, because the word 'feelings' is defined by objective human experience.

>>677330349
Membranes

>>677330349
>Atheists literally believe

No, they don't. They may accept a theory until disproven.

>>677346005

Ok, obviously I am conversing with a moron, go play with your blocks son. Come back when you have a clue

>>677346509
Every
time an atheists talks about prove, they just show how stupid they are. read this:

>>677340083

>Science can't explain everything and doesn't claim it can. Science is only a small part of Philosophy. Not everything needs to be proven in order to be considered true.
>If a thing can't be proven or disproven we use razors, like occam's razor. When applying this, atheism and deism are equally valid, therefor it's open to debate.
>In any case, there is the 'newtons flaming laser sword' and I'd agree if you say the discussion is meaningless. But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.

>>677346836
I assume I've won that argument, because the only reply you have left is insults.

>>677330349
Yet you believe that some random all powerful spirit just decided to make the world? The Bible never said he made the universe but only the moon, sun and stars. OP you are on a new stage of stupidity.

>>677347362
Giant fucking straw man.
Believing in god and Christian fundamentalism is not the same thing.
Try again.

>>677330349
Oh funny how atheist like myself need proof. I will believe when I see him or Jesus descend from heaven. If that not going to happen then It doesn't exist. You believe in a book.

>>677347644
see
>>677346972

>>677347528
Oh then explain. Let see what you have to say.

>>677331643
But if he is making all of the retarded replys, that means he's you. You're not to be trusted.

>>677347250

Awww, look at the widdle kid, playing at grown up... You are a cutie, yes you are, yes you are!

>>677347750
Denying that a god exists is retarded.

The only rational religions/believes/ideologies are:
Solipsism, Ignosticism, Agnosticism and Deism

The point of religions like modern Christianity, Buddhism etc. is to make you happy and be nice to each other.

Islam, Judaism, Christian fundamentalism and the likes are stupid and social control.

Atheism (meaning gnostic atheism, or denying the possibility of god) is retarded and for edgy 12 year old.

>>677348322
The main question is how do you know idiot. You believe in God because you were raised to.

>>677330349
that's not what atheists believe... that's not how science work either...
i.... fuck it.
knock yourself out

>>677348476
I wasn't raised in any religion. Read my post again, I'm saying that doubt is the only rational position you can have. Claiming to know the truth, be it 'god exists' or 'god doesn't' is stupid. Nevertheless, practicing a religion is a good thing, if it makes you happy, and don't fucking ruin it for other people like the Muslims and Christian fundamentalists do.

>>677348904
see:
>>677342714

>>677348941
Take a look around OP. Look at the world and it's destruction. If God exist why let us destory each other? Hell we don't even know what religion is right. Religion has blocked us from achieving higher goals that humanity could've achieve.

>>677348941

So, what you're saying is it's better to drink the kool-aid because it serves a purpose. Even if you don't believe in it... You do know that organized religion didn't make people "nice" or "happy", people have been doing the whole personal morals thing since man walked on two legs. Religion just defines what "they" say should make you happy and good

>>677349290
Absolute bullshit. Religion is part of the human nature, thinking about where we would be without it is pointless. And, like i said, the only rational believes are: Solipsism, Ignosticism, Agnosticism and Deism. None of those claim that there is such thing as 'good' and 'evil'. The Christian believe is irrational, but if it makes you happy and gives you hope to believe in a loving, all powerful god and an afterlife, i don't see why this is bad. Only religion like Islam and fundamental Christianity have a negative influence on the world.

>>677330349
The fallacy in your argument is your belief that not understanding something means that God did it. In reality, it just means we don't understand it. And history has taught us that they only way to understand something to not invoke god but rather to research to topic.

>>677349897
But why should people believe? We own nothing to some magical being who doesn't do anything to save anyone.

>>677349680
Not everyone in the world is American. I know many people, my mother included, who don't believe in god 100% but go to church. Because it makes them hopeful and happy. You talk like the reformation and enlightenment did never happen.

>>677350221
They shouldn't. Nobody is arguing for deism, I'm arguing against atheism.
What you people don't understand is that it isn't black or white. There is a lot of gray in between.

>>677350266

I read books and play football in the park because it makes me happy. But you don't see me making a religion out of it. People who fall back on some "higher power" to make themselves feel better, justify their existence, well lets just say the term sheep comes to mind

>>677350764
again, you are seeing the world from an American/fundamental perspective.

>>677350495
So you are telling me that I should believe because I don't know what is in between? But then why shouldn't i believe because I still don't know what is in between?

File: 1424050073921.jpg (25 KB, 500x412) Image search: [Google]

25 KB, 500x412

>>677330349
THIS is why we need free college education in the USA. Too many idiots who believe in invisible magic people.

>>677350495
So I should believe cause I don't what is in between? But why can I not choose to not believe?

>>677330349
>Atheists literally believe
still unclear on the concept

>>677351309
>Q: But why should people believe.
>A: They shouldn't.
>So you are telling me that I should believe.
Being 100% sure that god exists and 100% sure that he doesn't is equally retarded. I'm telling you that a rational person accepts the possibility of a god and may or may not chose to worship/believe in him.

>>677351513
see:
>>677351819

>>677351819
But the question remains. Why? The reason I denounce God is that i don't have any proof, nor has he came down to earth.

>>677351052

Aren't you the one assuming I'm american? No organized religion can claim 100% altruism. Greek, Roman, Celtic, Ancient Egyptian, Shinto, Buddhism, I could go on. None of them are all good, each has a dark side, an evil past with deeds done in their name people shudder when thinking about. But you don't hear about the bad side when peddling religion

File: this-thread-again-Good-Grief.jpg (72 KB, 360x311) Image search: [Google]

72 KB, 360x311

die in a fire

Atheists = people committing their whole life to being a troll

I will reconsider on the day I meet one single atheist who doesn't have to insult and mock religious people. You all say they're out there, but I have not met one.

>>677352055
Because, it's impossible to prove or disprove god. And where there is no prove, rational people use something called razors. I.e. occam's razor:
>Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
'God exists' doesn't make any more assumptions than 'god doesn't exist'. Both positions are equally valid, so the rational person accepts both of them to be possible.

Or, you apply 'newtons flaming laser sword':
>If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate.

And stop thinking about it all together.

>>677352130
Having an American mind set doesn't mean you have to be actually American. And religion as an institution and religion as a believe is not the same thing.

If you sit and think about it a god coming from nowhere and creating a universe out of nothing is ridiculous.

>>677352858
>You all say they're out there, but I have not met one.
because we don't post in threads like this or even take part in arguments about religion. it does not matter really what others believe

>>677332904
Newfag here, I've been around since October of 2015. So has this.

>>677352911

You know, I have never heard of "American" as a mindset. And lets be honest here, you mean North American, otherwise you risk insulting the Brazilians. Defining exactly what an american mindset is, you are right in one aspect. Institutionalized religion, controlling the masses. Religious belief, justifying your sense of "self". Once again, that sheep term comes up

Are you fucks still talking about this? For fuck's sake, and /b/tards wonder why they don't get laid.

File: burn_in_hell_pony.jpg (33 KB, 666x360) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 666x360

>>677330349
You cried when the horse died didn't you? Not me, fuck horses. They are stupid ass shit, and they always act like they are plotting against you, behind your back. Plus the fucking kid got a talking, flying dog-thing shortly thereafter. A goddamn flying dog anon! That's was better than a stupid, smelly horse.

>>677352911
I see where you are coming from and it makes sense.

File: 1457014515209.png (855 KB, 695x768) Image search: [Google]

855 KB, 695x768

>>677330349
IS THS WHY I KEEP BEING REBORN??
this is starting to become a bad stephen king book...

>>677353655
'sheep' implies a 'the bible is right, don't question anything' mentality, and that's exactly what i would describe as 'American mindset' when it comes to religion. The Age of Enlightenment happened in the 18th century in Europe and it's ideas didn't really reach America.

>>677347970
kek

File: elias.jpg (113 KB, 900x600) Image search: [Google]

113 KB, 900x600

>>677353788
I never wonder that.

>>677354389

Sheep is implying a fool follows the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, the Sutras, etc. Never said it was exclusive to Christians

>>677354801
That's because it's one of the fundamental axioms of the universe.

No one actually knows where the universe as we know it came from or how it originated. It's not like evolution where we have a lot of evidence for one strong theory.

>>677354389
>implying Americans don't know about enlighenment
>implying that Jefferson and Franklin weren't two avid contributors to the enlightenment movement
>I shiggy diggy.

>>677355056
Yes, but its still 'following ...'. But unlike Judaism and Islam, there is a part of Christianity that doesn't blindly follow their scripture. And like i said before, it's because of the enlightenment and the reformation. Most Christians outside of the US don't take the bible literally. Even the catholic church supports evolution and the Big Bang theory and stuff like that, and they are considered rather backwards. The bible is just a bunch of stories. It's about love your neighbor like yourself and things like that.

>>677355512
I didn't say Americans don't know about enlightenment, i said that the ideas didn't really reach America. Of course they heard about it, but it was largely rejected, that's why there is still so much fundamentalism going on.

>>677356178
Except they did reach America, in very serious ways. The main tenets of Enlightenment are kind of the cornerstones of American society. It's largely what the Constitution was based on. But hey, don't let history get in the way of your generalizations, pal.

>>677356178
>But unlike Judaism

Most Modern forms of Judaism are progressive, and rational.

>there is a part of Christianity that doesn't blindly follow their scripture.

And yet the dominant part, the part that is growing worldwide, whereas the rest is shrinking, does.

>>677356860
It reached intellectuals, but not the common public. Just as an example, the founding fathers wanted to separate church and state, which is one of the main things of the enlightenment, but later things like 'in god we trust' were accepted as official positions again.
Because most people held on to their fundamental believes.

>>677357187
>Most Modern forms of Judaism are progressive, and rational.
I accept that. I don't know much about Judaism.
>And yet the dominant part, the part that is growing worldwide, whereas the rest is shrinking, does.
Also true, and it's a bad thing. That doesn't make the other Christians irrational though.

>>677356178

You do know that organized Christianity, started in Europe. More specifically Rome, Vatican. Where it still has its evil tendrils to this day. Slapping a new coat of paint on a bigoted way of thinking, doesn't make it absolved. Has there ever, and I mean ever, been a black Pope? An asian one, hell even a white Irish one?? Nope, because no matter how ya package it, religions (Christianity since it seems to be the hot topic) all discriminate be it race, sex, belief. And by association, so do its followers

>>677357776
"In God We Trust" doesn't mean that there's no separation of church and state here. And there are a lot of people in this country who want even that off of our money. But your statement that "Enlightenment didn't reach America" is completely wrong, and a dumb attempt at America-bashing. There are a lot of things to criticize about my country, but a "lack of enlightenment" is not one of them, anon.

>>677354859
sauce?

>>677330349
Whats really ridiculous is that somehow this thread is here everytime i get on 4chan. i dont know if i should congratulate you or get you help

>>677330349
>2016
>still believing in atheists

>>677357977
>goes full mcintosh

>>677358139
I'm only talking about the enlightenment in regards to religious believes. And i said it didn't 'really' reach America. Meaning not to the same extend as in Europe.
You have to accept that there are a lot of people (not all, maybe not even the majority, but certainly more than in Europe) who still follow orthodox and fundamental believes.

>>677330349
I beleive in tits
http://www.streamboobs.com/sweetaangel/

>>677357776
>That doesn't make the other Christians irrational though.

No, I suppose not. I do have a lot of respect for certain groups of Christians. The Quakers and Mennonites particularly.

I grew up attending the Church of God, and the experience totally turned me off of faith for life. The Church of God aren't typically as nasty as say the Southern Baptists either. I don't think the people I grew up around were bad people at heart. They were just extremely delusional, and ignorant, and they were fucking proud of it.