>>18369883
Because Fedorafags became what they hated.

>>18369883
You perceive atheists as on a separate side on a culture war.

>>18369883
You are still seething about ghosts of the past? The Reddit atheist was only relevant in the days of the iPhone 1 and the 2012 Mayan apocalypse

>>18370071
>>18369921
This. There is no difference between christcucks and atheishits.

>>18369883
the sam harris athiest types were zionists.

they started against anti zionist christians for online campaigns but their bread and butter for irl policy was anti islam.

>>18369883
Because no one likes being told they're wrong, so listening to an atheist makes you seethe.
>>18370126
They didn't go far enough with the child raping religions.

>>18370126
Here's how it always went:

>dawkins
never gave his opponents the benefit of the doubt or treated their arguments with respect, thus destroying any hope of debate with his smug face that other fedorafags emulated.
also, he a "cultural anglican" now.

>harris
appropriated buddhism for his own needs.
said "islam bad" when it was hip and trendy to do so post-911.
started the trend of attacking entire religions as objectively bad without any concept of their diversity, historical development and geographic variance.
created a form of consequentialist ethics that was so bad some ethics profs use it as an easy book for their students to critique, still has the nerve to ask "what am I missing?" a decade after the fact.

>hitchens
sophistry.
has a severe problem of reading books by the cover, cherrypicking quotes, and writing entire chapters on what was essentially his impressions, one would mistake him for a gossiping church lady if it weren't for his oh-so-complex way of speaking.

>dennet
nobody knows him. also he ded like hitchens

>dillahunty
speaks like an evangelist, has a show like an evangelist, entertains calls from braindead boomers and acts like that's all religion has to ever offer.
can't even debate cliff knechtle, because he's no longer in a superior position where he can slam the telephone down.

>redditors
I mean, what did you expect?

>hirsi ali
literally no longer an atheist kek

>gervais
always needs to present himself as some sort of atheist sage in every movie or show he appears.
is the embodiment of "uhm akshually"

>>18370675
being so submerged in this shit that you can rattle off all that is actually incredibly cringe
you're probably as much of a freak as the people you listed lol

>>18370682
>knowing about a topic is cringe
Thank you for your contribution to the thread.

>>18369883
People are inherently annoyed by other people telling them that they are wrong, regardless of who is actually wrong.

>>18370876
This is also the problem with veganism and environmentalism. While a lot of the points they argue for make sense, the people saying those points are some of the most vitriolic smug moralizers on the planet who will stop at nothing in their self-righteous crusade.

>>18369883
Their hobby is bullying retarded people.

>>18370126
islam is guility of many the same things christianity does
if you want to stay consistent you wouldn't stop at criticizing one religion

File: dawkins vs trannies.jpg (113.5 KB)

113.5 KB JPG

>>18370675
>never gave his opponents the benefit of the doubt or treated their arguments with respect
to be fair they never seem to deserve it

>>18369883
>We all know God does not exist
Chapter and verse, King James.

>>18370951
Can we actually enjoy hell though? Like, is it spiritually possible to feel pleasure in your personal damnation?

>>18370958
I don't know, I don't really have to think about it because I'm never going.

>>18370071
"Culture war" is a term meant specifically for disarming anything right-wing or traditional. You pretend like it's a waste of time and not worth caring about only when it's the other side who advocate for their interests.

>>18370963
Yeah, keep doing evil. Saying you believe in Jesus is a magic spell that guarantees you a good fate in the afterlife. No matter how much evil you do.

File: But I was BASED.jpg (33.6 KB)

33.6 KB JPG

>>18370972
>I, on the other hand, will go to heaven because of my good works.
You're so fucked. :)

>>18370974
Who are you quoting?

>>18370974
Faith without works is dead

>>18370980
>My iPhone is dead.
>That means it doesn't exist.
Tick tock.

>>18370986
>iPhone
found the "christian" Jew lol

>>18370891
Way to expose yourself as sissy fag. Leave tone policing to women and fags. Truth and substance reigns over mean words and smug attitude.

File: pc.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

>>18369883
Because despite materialism being evidently true, every human knows that God exists.

>>18370675
>what was essentially his impressions
No, he wrote about what was logical and evidence and how none of the god arguments are logical and most of the "historical evidence" they depend on are unverifiable, if not verifiably wrong.

>>18370896
Ok, but which one of those people lived in an islamic society where they were surrounded by islamic arguments instead of christian ones, so they could actually be said to directly understand what they are talking about?
Its hard for people who contradict islam to arise in islamic societies since islamic societies outright murder people who question islam.

>>18370963
>I'm never going.
You definitely are with that entitled attitude, so enjoy hell.

>>18370986
If its really dead, it means the software on it and the files you saved on it don't exist anymore.

>>18371115
Which god?
Human generally recognize at least 2, one light god and one dark god.

>>18370675
>denet
The guy who solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness by saying consciousness doesn't exist, because the brain is matter and matter is unconscious, so therefore there can be no such thing as consciousness, and that what you think of as consciousness is really just an illusion. In reality we're really just deterministic machines no different from an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine. Denet was one of the brightest minds of atheism (mind only figuratively speaking, because they apparently dont exist)

>>18371133
Unfortunately for Denet, he didn't exist.

>>18369883
you worship men
let that sink in

>>18371133
Wasn't he the guy who destroyed the qualia retardation?

>>18369883
If you know God doesn't exist, why do you defend theism so much?

>>18371167
Atheists can make retarded arguments too, just because you are debunking a retarded argument doesn't mean you support an diametrically opposing yet equally retarded argument.

>>18371176
>Atheists can make retarded arguments too
Like what? Atheism is the lack of belief. It doesn't need arguments.

>>18371180
I can't see it with my own eyes, so it can't be real is one example of an illogical fallacious argument that atheists tend to use to justify their atheism, but you can't see radio waves and a bunch of other things with your eyes either, sight is a very limited sense that isn't suppose to provide evidence for every possibly phenomenon, so it isn't the only way to validate something.

>>18371165
Qualia destroys itself by being unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo

>>18371186
Then why do paramedics/doctors still use the finger test to test for consciousness?
>Sir, can you tell me how many fingers you see me holding up.

>>18371185
>I can't see it with my own eyes, so it can't be real is one example of an illogical fallacious argument that atheists tend to use
Can you post an example of atheists saying this?

>>18371188
Qualia isn't the same as consciousness it's a Platonic abortion

>>18371188
That's a behavioral test

>>18371190
Are you implying that because you can't find them on your own within 3 minutes, they don't exist?

>>18371194
No, its a consciousness test, asking them to squeeze your finger is a behavioral test.

>>18371196
Where exactly did I imply that?

>>18371198
It's a behavioral test for consciousness. There's no test for qualia, which is in the first-person.

>>18371203
Where you failed to do any due diligence to find similar arguments on your own or accept that it was an general example, no some specific thing that I can pull up an exact source immediately and you don't even consider famous historical examples like doubting Thomas.

>>18371203
Also where you don't know that appeal to ignorance fallacy is based exactly on that kind of thing.

>>18371204
There are no medical tests for memes, yes.

>>18371205
You made the claim that atheists make that argument, so you should post evidence that they do.
>even consider famous historical examples like doubting Thomas.
Your "historical" example is... a strawman in a holy book? Lol.

>>18371204
>There's no test for qualia
Finger test is testing exactly for what they experience when looking at your hand
>which is in the first-person
Yes the finger test is making sure that the person who is being treated has synchronized their individual experience of how many fingers are on the hand with the person doing the treatment.

File: play doom.jpg (170 KB)

170 KB JPG

>>18371188
Consciousness is overrated.

>>18371210
>Finger test is testing exactly for what they experience when looking at your hand
Wrong. It is testing for what they say, not what they internally feel.

>>18371213
No, it is testing if they experience seeing the same number of fingers as expected.

>>18371216
You are assuming that they are reporting their experiences accurately. You cannot test that assumption.

Atheism is about not believing in anything but instead these guys are super smug like they have knowledge and assurances that you don't have.

>>18371218
Any measurement assumes the instrument is calibrated and operating/reporting correctly and accurately, you can test it with repeated measurements.

>>18371221
>assumes
Exactly. You are not testing qualia. You are assuming it.

>>18371225
No, you are testing it by assuming the person isn't lying just like you measure a distance by assuming your meter stick is market correctly, you can ferret out lies pretty quickly with repeated tests by other doctors just like you can tell if your meter stick has warped over time by making the same measurement with others.

>>18369883
Probably because you do not resent religion enough. I dont care how annoying atheists are, all i know is that they annoy the stuffy Abrahamic assholes and that makes me happy. Even if that wasnt enough, they are the underdogs by virtue of not being in the majority and everyone loves the underdog

>>18371226
A p-zombie will say the same things as a conscious person but it won't have qualia. Your test can't detect p-zombies.

>>18371230
How can your p-zombie ever answer correctly if it doesn't actually have an experience of seeing a particular number of fingers because it can't have the experience of using its internal though processes for counting?

>>18371233
By definition, a p-zombie cannot be distinguished from a conscious person through any third person test.

>>18371235
That doesn't answer the question, you have just proved that your concept of p-zombie is so incoherent that you can't answer simple follow up questions regarding how can a p-zombie have internal thought processes that can be used to come up with consistently correct answers like counting fingers if they can't possibly experience that kind of thing by definition.

>>18371241
You are asking for a mechanism. That's irrelevant. The definition of p-zombies is that they behave the same as a conscious human but don't experience qualia.

>>18371250
Humans don't all behave identically, but to behave as the type of conscious human that can count fingers quietly in one's own head instead of counting aloud requires direct experience otherwise they could not do those tasks that require internalized experience such as counting in one's own head instead of aloud, they would have to behave like retarded people who can only count by counting aloud one at a time.

>>18371254
>requires direct experience
That's just an assumption on your part. It's not part of the definition of qualia.

>>18371257
No, its how knowledge works, you first have to experience/learn something to be able to apply it, are you saying that p-zombies are born smarter than you and can count instantly without having to be taught about counting, so you are the abject retard in comparison to a p-zombie that already has all the knowledge they need for their entire life the instant they are born?

>>18371269
It seems you are unable to comprehend the hypothetical of a p-zombie.

It's 1960, the tail end of white Christian civilization, John Lennon and Paul McCartney are working on their early music and the civil rights movement has begun in America. Northern Ellis islanders look sympathetically towards black ww2 vets and musicians and the like, now given prominence in media against WASPy white southerners, all viewed in new TV sets across America. The world is changing fast and human genetics and evolution has become a political question.

Amidst all this in Oxford we find a plucky young whippersnapper, Richard Dawkins, his eyes bright drinking in ornate surroundings cultivated for the elite with whom he now shares classes. His biology professor, Nikolaas Tinbergen, an atheist with strong views having been a civilian prisoner of war during the German occupation of Holland. Tinberg had met Konrad Lorenz in 1937, future author of Man's 8 Deadly Sins, and engaged in lively conversation discovering their similar views and ideas, but their paths promptly parted, Lorenz joining the NSDAP for his career and later ending up on the eastern front then a soviet prisoner of war camp.

Within their intellectual circle existed a blend of conflicting ideals and biological reality. Lorenz understood NSDAP eugenics yet apparently discarded it in favor of a career in a postwar world. Tinberg must have understood evolution affects humans and their abilities and behavior yet kept it under wraps due to his trauma and rage, he perhaps imagined modern science and technology could compensate. After all it is still the 1960s, who knows, maybe African Americans will be IQ 100 and low crime like white people one day, maybe the large human neo-cortex really is a sort of "blank slate", maybe we will all be zipping around like the Jetsons and all this will be a distant irrelevant memory.

The great experiment had begun and Dawkins was educated at the beginning by its architects, he would be the future, someone to suppress biological reality armed with Tinberg's memes.

File: 1720382421862[1].webm (3 MB)

3 MB WEBM

Gradually through his life Dawkins saw that bright world of his youth fade, the great social experiment fail and degeneracy fill the void left behind by community and religion, as Lorenz subtly anticipated. Though this was propped up by massive modern prosperity allowing lower-middle classes and up to insulate themselves in the 'burbs. Freedom from brutal darwinistic forces Dawkins attributed to his new savior, science, which in turn depended on the switch from superstition to material reality and finally, Dawkins deemed, atheism, the foundation upon which this new world and all his hopes and ambitions and those of his peers and society in general rests. After all theists were mean to Galileo, o algo.

The isolation of the 'burbs however were not enough for a man to whom abstractions hold great meaning, exemplified in his spat with ethnic jew and self-avowed marxist Lewontin. It was not that Lewontin borderline denied genetic differences have any effect on human ability, rather the danger of doing so alienated anyone intelligent enough to understand why he was wrong, who would no doubt drift to a new ideology, particularly risky when the majority were still white and had little motivation to adopt a kind of social darwinist classism over racism.

Dawkins presented his own set of ideas as a safer alternative, garnering interest among America's progressives, since Lewontin's take was indeed some 40 years too soon. They introduced him to America's creationists whom he found far more fame criticizing with his first big seller The Blind Watchmaker which in turn renewed interest in The Selfish Gene among atheists and nihilists. Subsequent books in the 90s were not as successful, but the internet and interest among grungy pseudo-punk teenagers of the late 90s and early 00s led to an atheist fad, which he pounced on, producing the God Delusion, soon to be his most famous work and launch him to fame.

>>18371398
>After all theists were mean to Galileo, o algo.
cringe

>>18369883
test

File: fedora god delusion.jpg (86.2 KB)

86.2 KB JPG

Though pushing 70 this fame soared with the stereotypical smartman Englishman seen in debates with various goofballs. White teenage boys would see this and eschew their parents for making them go to Sunday school in their "boring" WASPy suburbs, engrossed as teenagers often are in mass media and pop culture over their parents and community, they donned the fedora and loudly and boldly rebuked grandma's views on Jesus. It was about this time that 4chan was growing in popularity and adopted the term "meme" from Dawkins himself. However his fame started to wane around 2012, 6 years after the God Delusion, as soon people like Lewontin and the postmodernists, with whom Dawkins quarreled before, bloomed.

Now able to rely entirely on cancellation and intimidation to convince people to stop discussing genetics and evolution and its effect on humans, they no longer needed Dawkins' fallacies to distract and divert the opposition. In the 2010s DEI was pushed hard predicated on the claim that continuing black underachievement despite decades of social welfare and preferential treatment in the richest country in the world was due to unfalsifiable unquantifiable entirely subjective "racial microaggressions" and the like, using lingo related to postmodernism like critical theory. In this environment Dawkins' big mouth got him into trouble speaking about transsexuals and so on. Even r*ddit turned on him. The fedoras, now a little older, threw it in the trash in shame at their cringy teenage selves, either because they had become chuds or soiboys.

Dawkins was just a mere stepping stone, he helped kick the stool from under white Christian civilization and convinced a bunch of white boys to vote Obama so that something new could take its place, something that had no place for an old white man who understood genetics and evolution, though they opposed it for different reasons. Christianity had presided over Europe as it dragged humanity out of the middle ages into the modern world, ended slavery, formed modern representative governments and democracy to replace brutal darwinistic hierarchical kangdoms and dictatorships to whom torture was standard practice and allowed for social welfare to preserve the elderly and infirm and free BIPOC ethnicities which nature would otherwise see "marginalized" or dead.

There is no place for morality in atheism, so why would an atheist care about all that? Thus he laughably announced he was "culturally christian" in a vain attempt to preserve Jesus's ethics without its underpinnings. He was too deep I imagine to acknowledge that just as atheism is the wellspring of all his copes, God, specifically the God of white Europeans, was the wellspring of everything good in the world.

Plain atheists like OP whose belief is merely "there's no proof, I guess" stare dumbfounded at all of this. I'm not going to say "atheism bad, theism good". Logically atheism is not the root cause of the nihilist kafkaesque nightmare we now live in, although it played a role, as atheists often say it is merely the absence of God. One can point to Islam to see that atheism is unnecessary in all this. However if it is not God that explains consciousness and existence itself, then it must be something else, something that would still be considered "superstition" by a human limited to the current understanding of our universe according to modern science.

File: solid gold swastika disc glorifying Odin, God of war.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

Coincidentally some level of superstition is necessary for the human to break free from pure materialism and the arrogant stifling attitude any Kierkegaardian leap of faith for something greater than you can see and touch is a fool's errand. Why abide by morality when there are no material consequences to your actions? Why be a straight laced square and work hard for a greater cause? Why go through the trouble of raising a traditional family? Why not just play vidya and goon? You get more dopamine that way. Why not shoot up heroin? You get to experience the most pleasure you could ever experience after all, albeit for that one first time, but why even care about your future self? You have to be a little superstitious to avoid this fate. Perhaps we should have listened to the old Nazi instead.

>I believe that the universe is governed by a single set of natural laws, which are free from internal contradictions and which are never transgressed. This conviction, which, for me, is positively axiomatic, excludes extranatural happenings. In other words, I regard all the phenomena described by parapsychologists and spiritualists as self-delusory. This opinion is completely unscientific. Extra-natural processes might occur, very rarely and in very slight measure, and the fact that I have never witnessed any that convinced me does not justify any assertion of mine that they do or do not exist. It is, admittedly, my purely religious belief that there is only one great miracle, and no miracles, in the plural, or, as the poet-philosopher Kurt Lasswitz has expressed it, that God has no need to perform miracles.

>>18371401
The idea science stifles science to a significant degree is still a prevailing belief.

>>18369883
The only honest and intelligent take is agnosticism actually, you slid out of a utures against your will lets stop pretending you know anything midwit
> Inbefore religion stories are retarded
God can exist outside of existing religious systems retard

>>18371404
>Thus he laughably announced he was "culturally christian" in a vain attempt to preserve Jesus's ethics
I wonder what caused you to make up lies like this. He has always called himself a cultural christian. Here's an article from 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

>This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.
>"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

>>18370675
>gervais
Isn't that the guy who swam in shit?

>>18371406
>God can exist outside of existing religious systems retard
Great argument. So can Santa.

>>18370675
>also, he a "cultural anglican" now.
See: >>18371407
It's interesting how online evangelicals have been programmed to be good little liars for jesus.

>>18371407
>cultural Christian
They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.

We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth--it stands and falls with faith in God.

When the English actually believe that they know "intuitively" what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.

>>18371422
Not interested in your slop. I was just pointing out the lies you were posting.

File: absolute nietzschean.jpg (146.9 KB)

146.9 KB JPG

>>18371425
It's Nietzsche's slop, from Twilight of the Idols.

>>18371433
Don't care either way. The important thing is to highlight your lies.

>>18371436
I'm not >>18371404

>>18371442
Okay, the important thing is to highlight that guy's lies.

>>18369883
Atheism would not exist if religious people weren't so goddamn annoying and overbearing and cringeworthy

File: 1764780226688474.png (305 KB)

305 KB PNG

"Imagine being defied in such a way that you cope and seethe even 10+ years after the event.

Don't tell me you're over it. New Atheism is barely a thing anymore. Most people move on or developed more advanced theories, e.g. memetic, alternative ontologies etc.
The only group that still keep fighting are American evangelical protestants.

Oh, please, leave us alone with consciousness.
You claim you have won if there is one unexplained thing left in the world. However, this was never the point of the discussion. You are pulled to prove a very specific metaphysics that includes very specific claims. Even if science is not the answer to the puzzle that the world is, you are no closer to proving anything. You don't even have the education to explain your own ideology properly. Most of the time, the actual discussion happens beyond your head entirely.

>>18369883
Because you shouldn't need an organization dedicated to not believing in something you don't believe in

>>18370675
>Here's how it always went:
No it didn't. This is just christcuck apologetist projection

>>18370964
>anything right-wing or traditional
False. It's targeting the culture war, both the left and right side. That excludes economics and focuses on social issues. You're just a right winger feeling called out.

>>18371209
>so you should post evidence that they do.
I don't document every conversation I have or remember the exact post number of every single post ever made, but that is just one famous example and it was always meant to be a general example of how an atheistic argument can be fallacious rather than a specific quote from a specific arguer, but there are entire saying like "I'll believe it when I see it" that demonstrate the commonality of the argument.

>a strawman in a holy book
Doesn't the fact that the centuries old book invented a strawmen to address the exact thing I am talking about prove that it has been a common argument for a long time and make the case for those kinds of ways so thinking as the basis of empiricism?

But if you still insist on a specific example because you can't do your own due diligence to research common knowledge, Diagoras of Melos and Epicurus both spoke about how primary senses are the basis of truth and Hume also covered it in his critique of miracles.

>>18371324
No, the nature of your hypothetical p-zombie is logically incoherent and you are unable to logically justify how one could learn to count with training and use their internal monologue to count without having any kind of internal monologue or sensation in the first place.

>>18371422
>Christian morality.
What does a culture of singing songs together have to do with morality and where did jesus sing in the bible or tell others to to sing carols as a group?

>>18370071
They are. Read between the lines

>>18370675
Sam Harris was the worst of that bunch

>>18372324
>Diagoras of Melos and Epicurus both spoke about how primary senses are the basis of truth and Hume also covered it in his critique of miracles.
They are talking about the senses, not just seeing, so it's a completely different argument.

>>18372329
You know that the entire Book of Psalms is composed of sons, and that there's a book called the Song of Songs?

>>18371422
You should know that Dawkins absolutely hates "christian morality"

>>18372350
He claims so, but whether he admits it or not, his morality is very much Christian in nature, no matter how much he wants to deny it.

>>18372352
You're engaging in what's called unfalsifiable wishful thinking.

>>18372347
Ok, so david and the torah jews wrote poems, but my question was about jesus and song singing.
Are you saying the lord's prayer is suppose to be sung? Why was jesus's original melody lost to time and why do so many christian denomination ban singing and dancing if he inspired those things and he has divine powers to preserve those things eternally?

>>18372355
No anon, I'm simply stating the truth, whether Dawkins and his followers like it or not.
>>18372357
>k, so david and the torah jews wrote poems, but my question was about jesus and song singing
He was a Jew and a Rabbi, so obviously he was familiar with the Psalms and quoted them all the time in the NT. Also, writing songs and singing is ubiquitous to every human culture, Jews and Christians included.
>Are you saying the lord's prayer is suppose to be sung?
It definitely can be and has:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AdPiRWIam0
Here's the Lord's prayer sung in Aramaic, whic would've been Jesus' original language. And you can find it being sung in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
>Why was jesus's original melody lost to time
It wasn't originally meant to be sung, but it can be turned into song, plus all the religious hymns that Christians of all languages have composed over the centuries, following in the footsteps of David and the Psalms.
>why do so many christian denomination ban singing and dancing
Citation needed.

>>18372364
>No anon, I'm simply stating the truth, whether Dawkins and his followers like it or not.
I'm simply stating that you are being delusional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Religion_and_morality
>He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that society does not need religion to be good. Instead, society's morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that religion is needed to make society behave morally. In support of this view, he surveys the history of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, generally progressing toward liberalism. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings. Thus, Dawkins argues that morality does not originate from the Bible. He proposes that society's moral progress informs what parts of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss.

>>18372366
Again, whether he likes it or not his morality has been shaped by Christianity. I don't give a shit what he wrote on a dumb book over a decade ago. If he's a biologists he should be perfectly capable of understanding that his environment shapes who he is as a person.

>>18372367
You should learn to read, because this is already addressed in the summary I quoted
> arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, generally progressing toward liberalism. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings.

>>18372369
>arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society,
Yeah, and that Zeitgeist is Christianity, and even moreso when he grew up.
>generally progressing toward liberalism.
And boy was he fucking wrong, lol.
>As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings.
Right, but that wouldn't change that the holy writings are still the anchor of morality, it's still the material that needs to be interpreted. And in Dawkin's case it's Anglican Christianity.

>>18372364
>He was a Jew and a Rabbi, so obviously he was familiar with the Psalms and quoted them all the time in the NT
Sure, modern rabbis are so known for singing all the time at synagogue.

>Also, writing songs and singing is ubiquitous to every human culture, Jews and Christians included.
Then you should be able to find plenty of passages where jesus is said to be singing and you should be able to tell me what jesus's original melody for his lord's prayer since the ubiquity would mean that even that would have been sung.

>It definitely can be
What can't be?

I didn't ask if it could be, I asked if it was and where are all the passages that confirm your claims and say that jesus was singing all his sermons.

>It wasn't originally meant to be sung
So you are just making up stuff to appear validated by your own lies?

>it can be turned into song
What can't be? My question was never can you sing things jesus said, my question was where is the proof jesus ever sang carols or that singing carols is based on christian morality rather than being ubiquitous to every culture as you pointed out.

>Citation needed.
Mennonite and Amish and others in the Anabaptist tradition have often imposed bans on music and singing and dancing.

>>18372374
The fuck is this shit about carols?

Singing and dancing is part of every human culture, and that includes Christian culture, so Christian composed carols about Christian stories and Christian themes.

Are you braindead or what?

>>18372373
"Christianity" just gets swept up by the Zeitgeist, which existed well before christianity. That's why the 'christianity' today is completely different from the original one.

>>18372373
>Yeah, and that Zeitgeist is Christianity
No, the zeitgeist is a collection of beliefs and behaviors that often go against christian teachings, but they have adopted anyway because of social pressure and cultural mixing over time and if you are going with the most popular as your argument, you have to accept catechismic catholicism and the pope as the basis and living representative of christianity, but since you seem too contrarian to do that, I doubt even you accept your premise.

>>18372376
Anon, a Zeitgeist is just the spirit of the age, and there is no zeigeist that has existed throughout all this time, and certainly not before Christianity. Christianity has been the Zeitgeist of Britain for a very long time and it certainly was during the time Dawkins was groing up and also later.
>>18372377
>the zeitgeist is a collection of beliefs and behaviors that often go against christian teachings
No? See point above, Christianity can be and has been the zeigeist. I don't understand your desperate attempt and denying that Christianity has ever been the leading force in society.
>if you are going with the most popular as your argument, you have to accept catechismic catholicism and the pope as the basis and living representative of christianity,
Yeah sure. Catholicism has been the most dominant form of Christianity in the West for a very long time, Protestants today are still trying to fight off the influence of Catholicism to this day.

>>18372375
>The fuck is this shit about carols?
L2Read.
>>18371407
>This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.
>"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.
It was his example of what makes him part of christian culture, but singing isn't even inherently christian culture, since as you pointed out it started long before them and is shared by most cultures.

>so Christian composed carols about Christian stories and Christian themes.
But not the actual inventor of christianity, there is no documentation of him singing anything or writing any songs to convey his stories and his themes were famously based in parable prose instead of sung songs.

Not to mention that most popular "christmas" carols are about food and decorations and winter and have little to nothing to do with christian stories or themes.

>>18372380
>most popular "christmas" carols are about food and decorations and winter and have little to nothing to do with christian stories or themes.
Citation needed.

>>18372379
>Christianity can be and has been the zeigeist.
No, the zeigeist can always be called christian in nature by "christians" no matter how far it veers away from christ's actual teachings and no matter how much they lean into pagan values instead of the ones christ taught.

>denying that Christianity has ever been the leading force in society.
Anyone can call themselves christian, but the ones forcing society to be a certain way are hardly ever actually applying christian values.

>Protestants today are still trying to fight off the influence of Catholicism to this day.
So the zeigeist is for christians to be in perpetual war with each other and constantly change their minds about what christian values even are because of how christ said he didn't want peace, but to be a sword that cuts apart nations and families?

>>18372379
>and there is no zeigeist that has existed throughout all this time
Again, just read the summary I quoted: "Instead, society's morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy." You're not stupid enough to think empathy didn't exist before christianity, right?

>>18372382
How do I have time for citations when I need my figgy pudding and partridge in a pear tree.

>>18372385
>no matter how far it veers away from christ's actual teachings
Liberalism stays very much close to Christian teachings. They are certainly not pagans, and modern secular post-victorian British culture is far closer to Christianity than it is to whatever form of paganism existed in Britain prior to the arrival of Christianity.
>>18372384
>but the ones forcing society to be a certain way are hardly ever actually applying christian values.
You're gonna have to be more specific about who is forcing society and what specific values you're talking about, you're being way too vague.
>So the zeigeist is for christians to be in perpetual war with each other and constantly change their minds about what christian values even are because of how christ said he didn't want peace, but to be a sword that cuts apart nations and families?
.............no? Are you high or something?
>You're not stupid enough to think empathy didn't exist before christianity, right?
When did I say that? Christianity's core message is that you should be good to others even if you hate them, so it goes well beyond so called "empathy".

>>18372389
>You're gonna have to be more specific about who is forcing society and what specific values you're talking about, you're being way too vague.
If you were paying attention, you would know I am clearly talking about the largest christian organization on earth, catholicism, and the way they constantly interfere with governments and laws with their desire to impose a universal government.

>.............no? Are you high or something?
Are you retarded or something, why would you bring up protestants fighting catholics if you can't stand to confront The Troubles and jesus's explicit declaration to make war, not peace.

>Christianity's core message is that you should be good to others even if you hate them
So people generally sing carols with people they hate instead of with friends, that is what Dawkins was talking about rather than getting with friends and having a good time, but singing songs about proper christian behavior at people you hate?

>>18372394
>If you were paying attention, you would know I am clearly talking about the largest christian organization on earth, catholicism, and the way they constantly interfere with governments and laws with their desire to impose a universal government.
The Anglican Church is catholic in all but name.
>Are you retarded or something, why would you bring up protestants fighting catholics
Because you brought up Catholicism out of the blue.
>So people generally sing carols-
Shut the fuck up about the fucking carols.

>>18372396
>The Anglican Church is catholic in all but name.
How many governments have they captured, how many US Supreme court justices are Anglican Church plants? The fact that they are captured by catholics like other denominations as you seem to imply is the whole reason I am talking about the zeitgeist instead of specific sects of christianity?
>out of the blue.
No, I brought it up because they are the dominant christian organization, so if you are arguing about global zeitgeist of morality, then they are the avatar of the zeitgeist as the dominant organization.
>Shut the fuck up about the fucking carols.
No, carols and the way they have been purged of actual traditional christian values over time and just devolved into middling expressions of thankfulness for food, family and festivity that nearly all human cultures appreciate is the entire reason for his metaphor about cultural christians that you don't seem to understand at all.

>>18372394
>hat is what Dawkins was talking about
I already told you I don't give a shit what he said or wrote about. His morality is Christian whether he likes it or not because he was born and raised in a Christian environment.

>>18372403
No, he was born in an environment where sociopaths use christ as a shield to justify the oppression of the non-compliant while failing to follow most of christ's actual values themselves as they collectively sing song about indulgent food and opulent decorations.
Singing songs about dessert and decorations is not what christ taught and does not represent the future environment the bible predicted when talking about literal monsters rising from the sea.

>>18372389
>When did I say that?
You said the Zeitgeist didn't exist before christianity, right?
>Christianity's core message is that you should be good to others even if you hate them
Lol.

>>18372412
Ok we're done here, you're starting to go full schizo.
>>18372413
>You said the Zeitgeist didn't exist before christianity, right?
I said that there is no zeitgeist that endures to this day that has existed before Christianity emerged.
>Lol.
"Love your enemies,bless those that curse you and pray for those who persecute you".
Ring any bells?

>>18372415
I accept your concession, you can't justify that the zeitgeist of modern society is actually about enforcing jesus's values since its clearly about authoritarianism and population management with the most prolific mind numbing propaganda and global prison system in history.

>>18372415
The Zeitgeist is something that changes with time because more people are brought into the moral circle under consideration. The direction it changes in is one in which everyone within the moral circle is driven to cooperate. This existed well before christianity.

>>18372415
>I said that there is no zeitgeist that endures to this day that has existed before Christianity emerged.
That totally must be why they signed the abraham accord and seek to impose noahide laws to all international waters while still having no real way to codify jesus's two commandments into law, right?

>"Love your enemies,bless those that curse you and pray for those who persecute you".
And that is why the western world killed the leader of iran because that quote is so pervasive in the zeitgeist of modern government?

>>18372421
Motherfucker the main reason why the US is Israel's attack dog is speifically BECAUSE of Evangelicals and their weird reading of Revelation and God's promise of "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you".

>>18369883
just because people who believe 2+2=4 are insufferable cunts doesn't mean 2+2=/=4

>>18369883
>so why is atheism so damn annoyin?
because epstein made it so. look it up

>>18372423
So the pervasive zeitgeist of the day that you keep talking about isn't actually based on real christianity, its based on weird christianity and there are no real christians in the zeitgeist, especially in positions of power, except you and those who agree with you?

>>18372423
So you just gave up on the whole "there is no zeitgeist that endures to this day that has existed before Christianity emerged" since it is a totally indefensible statement without even considering the eastern tradition?

If there is any opposition to the moral zeitgeist, it mainly comes from the hyperreligious people - the trump christians, jihadists, zionists, etc.

>>18372431
>the people who openly identify as christians are the real non-christians
I bet that actually made total sense in your head.

>>18372435
They might as well be the real christians. I'm not the guy you were arguing with.

>>18372437
They are the real christians, christ specifically told his followers not to let peace set in and to act like swords to cut apart your own nations and families so monsters can eventually rise from the sea, that is my point, the people trying to stir shit up with confused morals to bring about global calamity are the one's acting out christ's actual teachings.

File: proto-communism.png (2 MB)

2 MB PNG

>>18372443
Christians unfortunately don't read the Bible so they don't know Jesus was just a proto-commie.

>>18372464
it gets even worse when you read romans 13 and paul basically says you should bend over to the government because it's god on earth

>>18372629
>For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval,
That's a little inconsistent with Paul being repeatedly thrown in jail and finally executed. And of course Peter was executed as well, and Jesus was too, though Jesus has the cosmic purpose excuse.

>there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
This is a little inconsistent with Ephesians 6:12, "for our struggle is not against blood and flesh but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." It's true that one is talking about earthly authorities and one is talking about spiritual authorities, but the first one says "there is no authority except from God" so it should include both. Only the first one reasons that resisting the authorities means resisting God, while the second implies that you should struggle against certain authorities.

Imo Romans 13:1-6 is an interpolation. Romans 12:9-21 and Romans 13:7-10 can be fit together very nicely as one continuous series of moral guidelines beginning and ending with the topic of love, which 13:1-6 interrupts.

>>18372664
Another point is that Romans 13:6 says you should pay taxes because the authorities are God's agents, while Romans 13:7 says pay to everyone what you owe them, including taxes, which is a subtly different justification. And in the gospels, Jesus' own argument for paying taxes is only that the money is owed to them because it's already theirs.
>Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
He says nothing about the authorities being God's agents for your good.

>>18372677
*pay to everyone what is due to them

>>18369883
if God doesn't exist, then Atheism can't possibly exist

>>18372940
Why?