At what age did you grow out of your atheist phase?

now's the part where you through fallacies and
ignore that I'm talking about tangible facts and not proving negatives, which btw, is not how science works. Evidence works with the claimant proving their side is true, not the other way around.

this isn't even a thing, the scientific method isn't a belief system, people who imply it is are people who are desperate to disparage science because they have nothing to argue with.

That's like trying to believe in Santa Claus again.

I might one day make an effort and pretend to be religious to socialize more. But deep down I know that God is dead.

instead of St. Mary and St. Peter they have Dawkins and black science man

I was 23 when I finally realized I had been running from the truth.

how? believing in rational scientific thought isn't the same thing as worshipping

>I fail to see how worshiping science and technology as ends in themselves could ever be a bad thing
>I fail to see how intellectualism could ever poison any movement or idea, and rot it to its core.

feels bad comrades

The cold nothingness of the void is the truth and it's actually pretty tough to accept a spiritual meaningless existence.

You are a coward for needing to go back to the soft embrace of an imaginary almighty.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

except they don't believe in rational thought, they worship it as a deity that could answer all ills of society. The prominent view of today that philosophy, and the social sciences are outdated fields that cannot explain the fundamental laws of the universe comes from scientism and New age atheism.

you're both spooked.

Yes, yes it is. Just look at all the New Atheist blowhards on Youtube. Or New Atheists in general.
Spelling. Also no.
Sorry, but how do you scientifically prove something to be false? By proving that it is false. You can't prove Christianity to be a false belief system unless you can prove the nonexistence of God.

If I believe in nothing spiritual, how can I be spooked?

spooks =/= everything spiritual

Prove the nonexistence of Osiris, Zeus…

I no longer even care about labeling my stance on these things.

Who's "they"? Teenage atheists?
That's low hanging fruit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
First advocated by our most favourite philosopher, Sam Harris.

it goes much deeper than that, modern academics, and modern reactionaries reject the majority of social sciences outright, and adore technological achievements as ends in themselves. If you think the opinions of reactionaries are unimportant, and non consequential then it will be too late to ever stop fascism. This malaise has been infecting society since before Marx's time.

346 replies and 69 images omitted, click [reply] to view

Ok, so, where is the spook then? Point it to me, don't just talk shit.

orkz are the most spooked race in existence, they're so spooked that their spooks literally make them stronger.

...

So you're saying that non-belief is a spook? Elucidate.

making a non-belief a part of your identity very well is, its the identification of a rejection, something that is completely meaningless outright. There's no such thing as the cold nothingness, only your incapability to recognize reality, and/or you conflating your worldview with reality itself (ideology).

Post evidence of the "reality" I fail to recognize.

Well it can. Philosophy is a load of posturing bullshit for people with too much free time.

I can't post "evidence" of reality, reality in itself is incomprehensible, people can only merely categorize aspects of reality, and turn it into something that can be reasoned with. Attempting to take this aspect like science and conflate it with reality is ideology.

I don't know a single person in my age group that is religious. My parents were atheists, too.

That IS science.

I never denied it, it seems like you didn't read what I posted after. you can only take parts of reality, you cannot reduce the whole of reality to these parts.

and that's how everything we know works as well.

Same here lad. Which country are you in? Britain here.

Also fucking hell at East Germany. The SED did a good job stamping out religion.

youtube.com/watch?v=UKPg9LT3h4A

I was an edgy atheist from like 15-16, a normal atheist from 16-18 and then at 18 became a Christian =) feels really good to be a knight of faith.

God is my property.

'Christian communists' area always Christians first before they are Communists. That's why they need to get purged.

Germany

you're a fucking twink though.

What a bunch of shitty ideology.
The only "belief system" you need is engaging with the dialectic of western philosophy.

kys

If you don't want solidarity, that's on you.

GEEZ

...

I would consider the existence of God as an open question, although i'm pretty sure that religions are made up and that there are no divine prophets or revelations.

from the East?

...

When did you grow out of your childish delusions of higher power phase?

Never really was a fedora-type atheist. I thank my interest in cinema - which developed around the same time as my interest in politics - for that outcome. I did (and still do) firmly define myself as an atheist but coming into contact with sophisticated religiously-inspired films such as those of Tarkovsky, Paradjanov or Jodorowsky helped me understand that religion could be not be reduced to a mere irrational cult.

I think you can be a relentless champion of secularism and be highly suspicious of organized religion while sincerely appreciating the historical contribution of religious thought to philosophy, ethics and aesthetics.

WEW

Forgot about my shitposting flag

I can understand why people are religious when I think of this. For some reason I just can't accept the bullshit though. Maybe there's a gene or part of the brain that dictates acceptance of religious explanations that a portion of the population just lack. Sure there's the smug "new atheist" thing but in my experience people of all social ladders and education seem to be religious or not. Yeah it correlates with being uneducated, but there's a certain spirituality that even a lot very intelligent well educated people can't seem to shake off. Like, they know the bible is bullshit and they can explain everything they "believe" as being irrational and probably wrong, yet they still "believe". It's a mental state that is utterly foreign to me yet most people I've met seem to identify and respect it in one way or another.

Can you recommend any specific film by those? Never heard of them.

"The cold nothingness of the void" is also just an idealized abstraction.
In reality the world is full of meaning. It's experience everywhere and everytime. It's subjective, but so what? There is no problem at all to be areligious in the sense of not attributing that meaning to any religion.

Paradjanov's Color of Pomegranates (1969), Jodorowsk's El Topo (1970) and Tarkovsky's Stalker (1979) are among my favs by far.

I saw this thread on 4/pol/, OP

I've seen it repeatedly on Holla Forums, /r9k/ and a few other shit boards. It's b8pasta.

...

...

at 19 I turned away form base atheism to agnostic believes and being a cultural christian.

...

I grew up in the south surrounded by religion specifically Christianity.

Always had my doubts, always knew that the bible was not 100% literally true, even the people in church did t make that claim.

Slowly became interested in other religions, dabbled in nor we mysticism, then buddhism, almost converted to Islam and then realized that the reason I could get comfortable in a faith was because they were all bill shot and none of them were correct.

I then became a deist and I'm trying really hard to just stop believing all together but its hard burying old habits and remembering its bullshit.

most ppl who get into buddhism never read the actual scripture and instead read pop articles and books by shrouded materialists.

That being said, you're conclusion is fair

There's nothing more insufferable than new age, bastardized Buddhism designed to appeal to the Western normie — my parents dabble in this shit and I just can't stand it. I define myself firmly as an atheist but I almost feel upset for the devout Buddhist monk who witnesses centuries of spiritual thought thrown to the dogs for the sake of selling yoga-themed books to a bunch of overworked white-collars.

Is it okay to be atheist but still celebrate Christian holidays and live by Christian values?

I give what I can to the poor, strive to understand and accept everybody, and enjoy partaking in Christmas due to it celebrating the spirit of charity. Yet at the same time, I don't feel any need to thank a god for all the wonderful happenstance that's occurred in my life, nor do I expect any help were I to beg him to remove the terrible ills that plague me. (Believe me, I have tried.)

That said, I will admit that the very mention of Christ brings warmth to my heart if it is delivered by his gentler disciples. I realize everyone always hears about religious nutcases, but all the truly devout Christians I know have turned out to be some of the nicest people I've ever met.

People who do not believe in God and do not observe rituals but do have respect for Christian values such as acceptance and charity are numerous and usually describe themselves as "cultural Christians". I personally think there are issues with such terminology (notably the fact that it implies these values are intrinsically religious) but still, here you go.

Yes, its called being a cultural christian.
You don`t have to believe in god to be part of the community.

Then, at least reveal to them the Buddhist canon: 8ch.net/freedu/res/1659.html#1659.

If you haven't any reservations, that is.

This board seems to be extremely hostile if you even mention the word islam but a bit more favorable toward Christianity, I guess because this board is mostly Westerners

I live in Abu Dhabi, from a Indian shia family. I do believe in God and I think shi'ism is a fun religion. I legitimately enjoy our poetry and lectures. My social life revolves around religious events

I think the mistake religious people make is to take their religion too seriously. You mold your belief to your circumstance, damn what it says in the Quran. And extremists are those who are I don't know dumb or crazy enough to take it all to heart

Abrahamic religions get the heat here, some people are fine with the "decent" parts they picked out of christianity but the rest is shitted on(slave morality etc), for Islam Sunni shit is disliked and Salafi/Wahhabism isn't tolerated at all, and Judaism is just hated.

hmmm

Jesus: fucking hated rich people, wanted to bring peace to the earth, literally walked into a bank and whipped a bunch of kikes

Muhammad: pedophile, rapist, war lord

Buddhism is superior to both tbh fam. Or at the very least, lucifarian, Christianity.

In Judaism, the original ZEALOTS, Jesus was a false prophet so its even worse.

Christianity is also shit, don't get me wrong.

That said, a majority of the world is religious - opiate of the masses, y'know? We absolutely must upend religious hierarchy and the religious justifications for material inequality, but stamping out Islam or Christianity seems like a quick way to make enemies we don't need; better to destroy theocracy and capitalism, crush religiously-motivated attempts at counterrevolution, and let what's left vanish of its own accord.

How common is this reasoning among western socialists?

/thread

Majority of western socialists are trotskyists and/or far left liberals who are just LARPing. Both groups hate religion.

I dunno.
Personally i think if you claim to be religious and also a commie you are a moron.
Communism is materialism at its highest form, communists are supposed to practice atheism, not be spiritual.

Im just saying, on paper, jesus has a lot more commie cred and isnt a psychotic pedophile

Religous person here.
Feels good to see the non religious or anti religious expose themselves, actually makes me realise that simply being religious is automatically superior.
Keep bickering and rejecting people because they are cut from a slightly different cloth.
Keep judging people against a standard of perfection while not being fit to lace their boots.
You're a retarded bunch of borderline subhumans, you'll never succeed and quite rightly.

Marriages of Muhammad's type with Aisha were customary among the Arabs of that time.
Also:

Do you actually know anything about religion you haven't learned on an imageboard or youtube comments section?

I'm only religious to the point where I can function as a normal member of my community. As a Westerner, you probably don't understand this.

Don't argue with him on that please, it is pointless

Who are you replying to?

There is this old song by woody Guthrie about jesus from a leftist perspective , which you dont hear much these days.

youtube.com/watch?v=EDS00Pnhkqk

lol nigger, i live in the south, there are churches on every block, i can walk to a church, but i have to drive to a supermarket, dont talk to me about religion and society.

Actually the 9 year old thing is generally believed amongst modern historians to be Sunni bullshit conjured up to counter bullshit Shia claims that Aisha was a slut.
It's come back to bite the historiographers on the arse 1000 years later but there you go.
Most likely she was 16-20 when she married, as she'd already served on the battlefield before she was married and that wasn't permitted for a young child.
And if you follow timelines, her narrations have her recounting things she did before she was supposed to be alive.

Everyone

Actually,that's a really good point if true. Can I get a source on that?

There's also the point that she was married off for tribal alliance and it was unlikely that she even stayed with Muhammed till years later.

so what, slavery was common a long time ago too, doesnt make it right.

I miss anontalk :(

It was right at the time. Applying your delicate 2017 sensibilities to things that happened thousands of years ago doesn't work.

how do they have no fucking shame?

I didn't.
I went deeper.
Now I play with the same spirits the Christians do on occasion, but they do not possess me.

When history is written it's usually written to create a narrative.
The issue is Muslims treat hadiths as 100% undisputable fact.
Even though a great many have been proved to be completely false.

...

...

that doesn't ever happen.
if it happened to you then you are too fucking stupid.

forgot my flag.
damn it.

...

Ooh an anarchist. How grown up.

Nice spooks

hey there, former anarchist here. It's about being against unjustified authority/hierarchies, not all of them. Please read your own theory, thanks.

Says the faggot(literally) that still believes in imaginary friends.

how do you even justify authority of an imaginary being?
fuck off you faggot.

The islamic communism-poster isn't actually Muslim

oh ok but he still is a faggot.

Around 14 when I started to do more in depth research into the occult. I am not sure if I consider myself a "theist" for certain philosophical reasons(I do not "worship" deites, powers, deamons etc) but I could certainly not go back to being a fedora.

That's not how spooks work. Spooks are "fixed ideas" that are not based on some external fact of the world and to which you submit yourself. They're ideas that you serve instead of ideas that serve you. Spooks are not delusions. Orkz are delusional but their delusions become real. Mapping this onto spooks is silly but they'd occupy some weird hybrid of meta-spooky and post-spooky.

The bible is basically a story book with lots of moral lessons, if you ignore the shit about stoning people and slavery it works pretty well in that regard. I simply cannot see any reason to believe in god.

Eh… I guess I'll be the edgy atheist and say that there is nothing in the bible that makes for a good lesson and isn't also commonly found elsewhere. That is to say I challenge you (or anyone) to produce something of value that's also particular to the bible.

Have you read the entire bible?

That's not my job. I'll restate:
It's not my responsibility to prove a negative, it's yours (or someone else's who promotes the same view) to prove the positive.

I was asking if you read the bible since you said there was nothing of worth in it.

I'm not gonna dignify that with an answer because there's nothing special about the bible. It's its proponents' jobs to sell people on it. You can either provide an example of a useful lesson that's unique (or close) to the bible or not. My job being a skeptic is just to ask for it and evaluate what I get.

I'm not a proponent of the bible but stop weaseling out. You haven't even read it, so I don't know how you would even know if there is something special or not.

Stupid anarkiddy

I'm not weaseling out. I'm challenging a statement. How much of the bible I have read has nothing to do with the contents of the bible. Diverting the issue to what I have or haven't read is distracting from the point. If you think the bible contains useful lessons that are particular to the bible surely you can produce an example. If not what are you even arguing for?

Not even a christfag, but you how do you say something is worthless if you haven't even read it? You make it pretty clear that you haven't, so fuck why do you want people to spoonfeed or prove to you anything. How about, like the true "sceptic" you are, you read it for yourself and decide?

Never.

In fairness Christians weren't supposed to lend at interest.

Not that it stopped them.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
Matthew 7:16

That's not precisely what I said, but it's close enough that it preserves the essence - saying that something lacks worth is a negative claim. It requires no evidence because it is impossible to prove a negative, only to disprove it (to "prove" a positive). What I actually said is that I don't think there are any valuable lessons in the bible that are specific to the bible as opposed to general culture and literature. These are both a neutral position on the subject of the bible, making no positive claim about it. "There is" must be justified but "No there isn't" only has to be said.

Not a skeptic either obviously.

There are many versions of the bible so "have you read the whole thing?" is a nebulous question at best. Numerous chapters were excluded from the popular versions, are they still complete?

Skepticism is when you base your position on evidence. I'm actually much less interested in the contents of the bible than whether or not people who make claims about its value have the ability to back up those claims. It's not even for my own interest I want people posting on a leftist board to justify their claims that there's merit in using bronze age mythology as a source of morals, wisdom, or whatever sort of guidance.

I'm fairly sure all religious texts were written by humans.
Now what I am not sure about is tha our universe is a self built machine with physics constants that just happen to result in human minds.
Intelligence begets understanding that nothing turning into everything is almost as illogical as any specific god.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Catholic Church granted the Jews a monopoly on usury by banning Christians from lending to other Christians. This allowed the Medieval Jews to amass enormous wealth, and as a whole live on the level of the lower nobility. Of course, they remember it only as persecution, whereas the fact that the ancestors of virtually all Europeans mostly lived as serfs at the that time completely eludes them.

But, that is not what I was referring to. The boring story of Jesus and his predecessors are the stories of Jews. Jesus never saw himself as anything but a Jew. I don't really care about the saga of the most narcissistic group of people in human history or their ugly cults of intolerance, persecution, and guilt.

Well, actually there are a lot of interesting possibilities for what the subjective experience of death is like. Heaven and hell are vanishingly unlikely, but things like quantum immortality are quit plausible philosophical ideas.

If I do simply cease to exist that's fine, but I'm actually looking forward to exploring that frontier for myself. It's extremely unlikely for me (or even sapient life in general) to exist in the first place, so I think I might have luck on my side.

Our species is far, far, far too primitive for you to make sweeping statements like that. We don't have the slightest clue why the universe exists or even if the concepts of "nothing" or "before" are meaningful. You might as well be a witchdoctor proclaiming that the Earth couldn't have formed from stellar remnants because stars are only made of air and fire while the Earth is mostly earth and water.

Out of interest, how did you find them to be "retarded"?

Posadist-Hoxahist when?

Read my post again, I am saying to be a hard atheist is full blown retarded.

It really depends what you mean by "hard atheist". I can say with almost complete certainty that no existing religion has got it right because it's about as likely as a random text generator producing the complete works of Shakespeare.

thats soft atheism
hard atheism is saying that it is absolutely impossible for any type of god or omnipotent being existing in any sense

Then I suspect "hard atheism" is just a strawman supported by a negligibly small number of people.
Even someone like Richard Dawkins wouldn't go that far.

I'm a Buddhist, I don't see there to be any conflict between religion and Marxism, at least not necessarily. I don't see why there must be some choice between science or religion as the New Atheist movement would have us believe there is.

However I also don't think it makes a good case to try and reconcile science with faith-based beliefs (like YEC etc.), nor does it make a good case to say to a Christian "there's no evidence for God therefore God doesn't exist", because that's just showing nearly zero knowledge of what Christians believe God to be.

Materialism is itself dogmatic.

There are some religions that do not have the "find out if it's true after you die" clause, or at least they have it to a lesser extente. Buddhism for example claims that by developing the practice of concentration and stillness of mind, one can penetrate the meaning of reality and the raw truth (i.e not merely a mundane understanding, but to truly grok it).

But there are logical arguments against various gods, or qualities of the Christian god. They may not be valid (I'm not good enough at philosophy to tell), but the point can certainly be argued: infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html

However Dawkins et al. don't go that far, and their arguments have little or no merit due to complete ignorance of theology or philosophy as a whole.

I can guarantee you that the only people to have every used those words are people criticizing atheism.
The actual argument is usually:
This is the exact thing that Russel's Teapot was meant to explain.

I started and ended my antitheist "science is the be all end all of everything" phase when I was 16

I'm agnostic now

ewww. So many subpar books in there.

People who make a point of stating that they're agnostic rather than atheist tend to annoy me because 9 times out of 10 it's just a way for them to feel smug and superior while they post neckbeard memes on facebook. Everyone who has actually given the topic serious intellectual thought has stopped giving a shit about labels long ago and knows that most self-described atheists aren't the strawmen theists seem to think they are.

It's like insisting that humans aren't omnivores because they don't eat rocks. Everyone with a brain already knows the "omni" doesn't include rocks. It's just semantic bullshit to obtain a false sense of superiority.

I disagree, or at least my experience differs; I've met quite a few people who have said that lack of evidence means that there isn't a God, and none of them were obnoxious in other ways.

Russell's Teapot is specifically an argument against the equally silly "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so it must exist", or at least "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so it can exist".

It doesn't even attempt to attack serious theological arguments.

Not just that. It's also an argument against "you can't prove it doesn't exist so we should assume it does exist until proven otherwise."

Admittedly the FSM is a better version of that argument because it would actually influence people's decision making if they genuinely believed in it.

I'm not one of those

...

FSM has the problem of being silly and triggering Christfags who don't like being mocked. You could make the FSM argument but with some other deity that people genuinely worship. That's still likely to trigger the Christfag but less likely, and if it does you can point out their unwarranted smugness toward other belief systems.

...

subpar to what ?

Huge loopholes on the logic of all of them.
All of them have a terrorist potential "yeh even Buddhism in fact zen Buddhism brand of terrorism scare me the most" and that they are all lack an ideal Ethical code to live by.

At what age did you grow out of your communist phase, Holla Forums?

youre just uninformed thats all

Christian socialists better explain why Christianity has walked in tandem with capitalism everywhere

How so?

Abrahamic faith is some of the most psychopathic reasoning in human history.

Could you explain?
I'm an atheist but I wouldn't hurt anyone else unless it was for self-preservation or perhaps to spread Islamic Gommunism

i really dont want to get into the details of it again and again but its obvious to me you lack the framework to be able to understand buddhism as cultural phenomenon, religion, philosophy, whatever you want to call it

it is what always happens when westernes try to "analyze it" and only leads to ignorance. you probably dont want to get into it properly to understand it so you ought to better refrain from making statements about it, since youll just look like a fool to anybody who does know buddhism well enough to tell you dont

putting atheism next to religions as an uniform movement or ideology and making assumptions off of it doesnt need any explanation for why its ignorant i hope

...

...

no its just tiredsome as fuck because i had to do it about 20 times this week already because for some reason buddhism is an ongoing point of discussion on this board.

when westerners approach buddhism they eventually fall for the trap to view it through the lens of western traditions and religions, which is why we see buddhsim as a lifestyle, religion, philosophy, cultural tradition and much more. if youre familiar with buddhism, you wouldnt even ask the question of where it fits into because it simply would NOT MAKE SENSE to ask in the framework of eastern tradition. it is something we invented for our western hemisphere and later applied to eastern traditions.

so if you make a statement like youre afraid of zen buddhism for its terrorist potential it shows that you think zen buddhism is a denomination of buddhism just like we have denominations of christianity in the west, when all it is is buddhist ideas and traditions being incorporated into the cultural context of that time (im assuming youre speaking of early 20th century japan). this doesnt make any statements about buddhism itself since buddhism is *inherently non-dogmatic and non-authoritarian* and allows for taking whatever you want from it and calling it buddhism. to make general assumptions starting from this point of view about buddhism as a whole is just a fundamentally ignorant perspective that shows you never studied buddhism in your life beyond the scope of a text book.

you can attack ideas and motives you find in buddhist traditions but thats about it. anything else doesnt make sense like it does with christianity or islam for example

You're an idealist. Religion mixes with what ever established order there is. If socialism becomes installed, Christianity will support it.

better

Socialism can not be just installed through the government, there are paths to socialism and christian morality doesn't fly with the path.

I don't think you understand.
Christianity supported feudalism against liberalism, and then it support(ed) liberalism against socialism, etc..

I'm just saying that it will adapt the way religion always does. When a new socio-economic order is established, the once revolutionary factions become conservatives. Read "One-Dimensional Man".

I personally think its stupid that socialists are so hostile to the religious who support socialism in the name of their elitism.

Take your critical theory and go back

stereolux.org/sites/default/files/fichiers/marcuse_h_-_one-dimensional_man_2nd_edn._routledge_2002.compressed.pdf

here you go, faggot

The thing is that this rule can be applied to all Abrahamic religions as well.

In fact all of these religions are not western at all but mid eastern your post only apply to roman catholic church maybe and thats it.

Look atheism is always taking the moral code values and ethics of previous religion to its existence, so you will never have a pure atheist subject, what you end up with is a Christian/Islamic/Jewish atheist, that is an atheist with a moral code inspired from said religions, even some time they take holidays like Christmas etc..

If not you end up in madness like that stupid neo atheist Sam Harris "scientific ethics"

> or perhaps to spread Islamic Gommunism
haha my brother, sharia law with socialist characteristics soon my comrade

"Western """Marxists""" " need to go back to Frankfurt.

Social Gospel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

Christian Left
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left

Christian Anarchism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

Christian Communism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Christian Socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

Liberation Theology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Communalism in Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism#Communalism_in_religion

Catholic Social Teaching
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching

Black Liberation Theology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology

———————————————————————————————————–

Communism's Christian Roots
makingmyway.org/?p=449

The Seed of Communism was Christian
dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2008/03/seed-of-communism-was-christian-seed.html

Friedrich Engels and Early Christianity
dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/frederick-engels-and-early-christianity/

Karl Kautsky - Foundations of Christianity
marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm

Friedrich Engels - On the History of Early Christianity
marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/

———————————————————————————————————–

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.

— Friedrich Engels, On The History Of Early Christianity, Die Neue Zeit, Vol. 1, 1894-95

i agree
the word atheism implies "hard" atheism
"soft" atheism is by definition agnosticism

thx for the reminder
(image related)

No, it does not. It's the lack of belief that a God exists.
is a position on the possibility of knowledge which is orthogonal to that of belief

Agnostic atheist is really the only way to go when genuinely discussing philosophy.
May as well treat the world day-to-day as though you are a gnostic atheist though.

tips fedora

Never because im not a fucking american.

Kill church goats.

theists of both kinds are the same
very few theists delve deep enough to distinguish themselves and those who do distinguish only call the "agnostic theists" those still searching their faith

It's not about self-identity. It's about objectively classifying what is.
One is a type of cognitive position, the other is metacognitive.
Is it the most useful way to classify theists? Not really, but doing it illustrates the general concept of the independence of these two aspects, which is especially relevant to understanding atheist thought in general

i maintain that there are actually only 3 categories
an atheist that isnt certain of no god is agnostic
a theist that isnt sure of god is still a theist
saying no god exists implies hard atheism

another user here.
Belief and knowledge are different things.
Some theists maintain belief but are conscious enough not to claim knowledge. Some theists decide to accept their subjectivities and have faith.

starting to think that non-fundamentalist christianity (especially modern catholicism) is a harbinger of a better society while "new atheism" has increasing ties with the aut-right
i choose the pope, comrades!

Tighty Whities are top notch, take it back you fag.

How bout a wedgie u fucken nerd

Fuck you faggot, they secure my nuts while ensuring there's not underwear lines on my clothes.

panties are inferior to boxer briefs

...

still inferior

My favourite part is when someone tells me atheism is a religion and I'm religious just like them

Well, after all. "Atheists are pious people" t. Stirner

But it is, and you are.
You're not really an atheist until you dispose of Christian and all morality.

...

The problem is this belief in rational thought. Instead of using reasoning as a tool, like its meant to be used, its invoked as some kind of spectre that everyone should always acting under. This comes up in how they project that people who disagree with them as being "irrational", instead of using reasoning to actually expose flaws.

Are you serious or funposting right now?

That is what Zizek says as well. Stop being literalist idiots.

...

I was raised an atheist so I went through an edgy Christian phase
I grew out of that and am an atheist today

...

wtf… I never even said it was correct, and I'm also not the guy who originally said it.

What it means is that many atheists still hold on to a big Other even if they don't believe in God.

You see it all the time with people getting into spiritual shit or going for buddhism (and fucking it up)..

or evolutionary shit like Dawkins and other new atheists.

knows what's up

If that is what
means, then it doesn't operate under normal rules for the English language
On top of that, your user of weasel strawmen serve literally no purpose other than showing your contempt for atheists

If you're trolling, good job, you got me good. If I wasn't in public I'd be fuming

kek, I don't think you'd be one who can engage with any literature

What strawman?

I am an atheist, you idiot.

youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY

I surprised religious people browse sites like cripple chan 2bh. You would think it goes against their religion or something.

Why?

No, you're antitheist. Atheism is the absence of belief, not a conscious rejection of it.

I never have been full atheist. I was always, am, and will always be an agnostic unless I meet a god myself. I regularly slide between theist and atheist but I usually stay on the theistic side these days but my concept of a god is kind of abstract. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is definitely not for me. I have more affinity with pagan and eastern belief systems.

If you aren't an atheist you can't be a socialist.

Believing in Babylonian pantheist Gods that transitioned from Elohim ('im' denoting multiple deities) to the national God 'Yahweh' of the Israelite people, who's nature and behavior can be qualified as inconsistent and irrational, as well as its transmogrification to the current 'God' of Western theology heavily influenced by Greek mythology is a little ideological for me fam

I meant philosophy

I used to be sympathetic to Christianity when I leaned towards conservative views. As a socialist though, I can't see much help in its teachings, it's opposed to a marxist analysis of society and sees "salvation" as the moral betterment of individuals, pretty much opposite of what I hold.

Nice fantasy of christianity that was never relivant. OP is a liar.

Christianity has always promoted and defended wealth inequality, poverty, war, and disease.

...

Atheists are cowards outside of the third world. They have no revolutionary potential.

Have you ever read that book? women are supposed to marry their rapists, slavery is okay, and picking up sticks on a Sunday carries the death sentence.

The Bible.. everyone talks about it and no one ever reads the fucking thing.

/thread

...

False, not only you are basing the "society" on lies and delusions who are dangerous and cause conflict once reality hits them because there are always smart people who dont buy that shit.

You also create an easy tool of manipulation that anyone with a brain can use to manipulate your delusional citizens.

A realistic world view based on actions and consequences is the only thing that a society should be based on, not morality, not goodness, not self sacrifice but mutual profit which is based on logic.

Nature teaches us nothing except survival of the fittest. This is why atheists are still drooling on their chins.