You cannot refute this

This

If you had religion OP, you would have the strength to not create these small-minded threads.

Attached: 1503173738064.jpg (680x483, 37K)

This is what people say to rationalize why they stick things up their ass. There's literally no reason to take hard atheist position unless you're frustrated that people told you to stop putting things in your ass.

this
agnosticism is fine, but I've never met a non-autistic atheist

Kike.

Attached: 20180716_110941.png (1635x2286, 2.33M)

i stick things up my ass because it feels good, why would i need to rationalize it?

>Jews are an ethnicity.
>Wait, no I mean Jews are atheists
>HOLD ON Jews are actually satanists!

Make up your mind, christcuck.
Calling me kike won't make you look smarter.

Attached: 1523916251829.jpg (166x255, 15K)

>because it feels good
you're already rationalising it, faggot
(you're also deluding yourself that anal stimulation is good, but that's another matter)

I guess if you cared what people think about you, which happens to be a lot of people.

You have 0 input on the "scientific" stance you shill for. That makes you an idiot, first of all. 2nd of all, Judaism is a religion. "Jews" are those who believe in Christ. "Kikes" are faggots like you.

Do you need any of this for the protection and development of your civilization?

Education is meant to be a way for people to contribute in exchange for resources - a simple job.
What our people need in the first place is liberty, protection of their soil and responsibility.

Civilization is meant to be a contract to simplify the survival and fulfillment of the individual needs, not to make it harder, restrict freedom or recontribute the outcome of productivity

What scientific stance?
Not believing in god is a scientific stance now?

Also, stop calling me idiot, you two-digit-IQ submonkey.

Jews are whatever is the most verbally advantageous thing to say they are at whatever time it is (e.g. Episcopalian), hence the autistic preoccupation with "identity". I hope you're using your big 165 IQ brain to create a dogma for the unwashed masses to use to fix Europe. Otherwise, I'd have to say you're full of fucking shit.

Instead of arguing over inane pseudo-intellectual babble watch this.
youtube.com/watch?v=uha7WWgoeX4

Attached: 1511415363668.jpg (726x572, 157K)

>mfw 148 IQ
>mfw smart enough to explore philosophies
>mfw I know none of them have satisfactory answers to ultimate questions
>mfw the Bible is one of the most intelligent books ever written
>mfw Ecclesiastes is a flawless philosophical exposition
>mfw God wrote this book so perfectly that even the least intelligent can understand it, while providing mountains of wisdom for the intelligent
>mfw people still deny His wisdom

I always laugh at the "only brainlets need faith" meme. Anyone shaking their fist at God is a fool, and the Bible is correct when it says that God has given them over to a depraved mind to do what ought not be done. It's like blind men laughing at those who can see.

Attached: 1532225577416.png (900x900, 201K)

>>mfw the Bible is one of the most intelligent books ever written
Do you have any proof to back this up?

Values could be learned by people without religion, but look at the world around you. We've been in the enlightenment for 400 years and humanity is only getting worse.

The overwhelming majority of the time scientific materialism/empiricism leads to nihilism, hedonism, and egoism. People need an idea of hell/bad karma to keep them in line. If you don't see this you just don't get human nature.

Attached: A63EC953-771D-4D79-A86A-2A84294148D1.png (544x766, 459K)

Attached: 1532805229773.png (900x900, 272K)

Yeah, here it is:
>the Bible

>>mfw God wrote this book so perfectly that even the least intelligent can understand it

I'm afraid nietzsche disagrees

The fourth picture is only attainable on a national scale if you replace religion with extreme nationalism. The need for a common identity is paramount in society. As of now, religion is still the best vehicle for this. The only modern culture that has reached the fourth picture are the Jews, and that is just because their religion is inherently ethnocentric.
Once we remove Jews from our countries and stop the "muh racism" bullshit that is associated with white ethnonationalism, then maybe we can collectively push towards the fourth picture. Most of the west is stuck at picture 1 or 2 though.

Show me verses to showcase the brilliance of the bible.

It's easily refuted. Check the distribution of IQ, and tell me how you plan to turn niggers into philosophers.

>148 IQ
>"Bible is one of the most intelligent books ever written"

Attached: 1510868440111.jpg (635x460, 25K)

most people don't understand the diffrence between usefull and true. Thanks lobster god

None of this things give you reasurment than on individual level you are not replacable and moral work bot but unique entity with special place in the grand scheme of things.

You need far lesser IQ to diss God concept than to accept it

Oh snap this nazi is on fire

Taxation is theft.

Attached: file.png (438x645, 305K)

Show the verses of the Bible that show it's dumb.
By the way, there's no way you're not lying about being in the 99.99th percentile. If you're telling the truth, you are walking proof that it counts for absolutely nothing.

Both the Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies are based in ancient theism, specifically Hellenism and the Homeric legends. These two philosophies also heavily influenced Christianity and Islam. Nice try though, atheistfag.

Yeah, amd by what merit do you deny gpd?

sorry user but im not gay

>Show the verses of the Bible that show it's dumb.

Where did I say that the Bible is dumb?

kek approves

This

Some of Christian ( or almost any ) doctrine makes sense, some parts are suicidal - consider the example of Jesus Christ - a literal scapegoat. That's what the Kikes want whites to be: Follow your ((((Jesus Christ))) Goyim...

>My IQ is 9372519106
>The builders of the western civilization should be killed

(((You)))

Correct

>>The builders of the western civilization should be killed
Who are you quoting, fr*Nchcuck?

So likes both promote atheism and Christianity? Which is it cock nose?

Easy on him, he must be a Muslim christian, aka protestant

X to doubt
If you think that your opinion is somehow more rational because your IQ is high then your IQ really isn't high at all. High IQ people are often just as likely as idiotic people to hold irrational beliefs because they are very good at justifying those irrational beliefs to themselves, see the Nazi high command for example.
By all accounts of your posting you're a dumbass who knows nothing of humility and hasn't read any pre-21st century philosophy in my humble opinion.

He has endless comments but no answers or positions. There's not much you can do with someone who's too scared to actually show who they are.

>If I cite random specific shit, maybe I'll sound smart!
Let's be honest, your understanding of the principles you're trying to flaunt here to show how smart you are came from a Wikipedia entry. You're not an expert or a scientist, and people are automatically going to believe you're stupid when you're essentially just throwing out bullshit esoteric knowledge and equating it with being intelligent in an attempt to defend religion because religion itself as a belief is indefensible.

Religion is for stupid third world niggers or people with similarly low levels of intellect. If you think Christianity is wrong but necessary, you're still wrong. Those principles will automatically fall apart as intelligence increases. Beyond that, Christian people aren't any more likely to follow a strict moral principle than anyone else. They'll fuck behind their wives' backs, cheat, steal, etc when it's convenient. They aren't any more moral than atheists.

>If you think that your opinion is somehow more rational because your IQ is high then your IQ really isn't high at all.

>142 here, kike.

Next time read the entire reply chain before you embarass yourself, kid.

*sigh*

Attached: 1518055643519.jpg (645x709, 128K)

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

>i don't need to back up my claim, you need to refute it
come on, man

>The majority adhering to philosophical principles in the modern era
LMAO

This.

You forgot the last panel

Attached: 1532872430379.jpg (854x1518, 408K)

>IQ is 51719963901716.92810
>Can't understand anything

I didn't make a claim. I'm only pointing out how he's planted a landmine:
>sub-100 IQ people need a religion
>but not Christianity, heavens, no
and then proceeds to not answer any of his own lines of inquiry (which weren't actually posed in question form). You come on.
I'm only saying, with his big ol' brain he should at least make one declarative statement that isn't meant to shut doors and limit pathways.

That is why I am a National Socialist. All the benefits of Christianity with no kike-on-a-stick bullshit.

Sucks to be you, then.

ITT: christc*cks with no coherent evidence that god exists

Tell me why the 12 Apostles died for their faith if God doesn't exist.

I would even add:
Without the Idea of God, heaven and hell, most values that permits tge human race to survive aren't applied at all. Therefore God has to exist

my bad wrong id

The truly high IQ person would never act as you have, and would acknowledge his own mortal humility and lack of ability to explain the processes of the universe.
Many ancient and later philosophers did just that -
"The only thing that I know is that I know nothing."
Socrates, a wiser and braver man than you will ever be

no sweetie
you first tell me what these apostles are, how they died and why they died
thats not how it works

>No u
The literal state of know-it-all atheists

based and redpilled

Retarded and false. You didn't state any reason for why the stupid actually "need" religion. Because they don't. They'll do just as fine without it. What you mean to say is, you want the stupid following religion so you can impose your own moral beliefs on the populace, and an institution like religion makes it easier to have stupid people follow whatever set of rules you want the masses to follow, even though your own opinions are retarded and the only reason you're in favor of this is because religion is traditionally conservative.

For example, if a new age religion were founded with the same basic ideas(creator made everything and gave us a magic book we should follow for how we act), but all of those moral principles were liberal and encouraged open sexuality and communism, you would reject it and say it's bad.

In essence, you only like the idea of religion if it's based on conservative principles, not religion itself. What that graphic should say is "I need religion so I can impose my moral beliefs on the stupid", not that the stupid actually need your guidance.

I honestly don't believe most who claim to have IQs over 120.
I attended literally the top school in my country (entrance based on assessment, no fees). In my year group there we're maybe a dozen people with IQ's over 120 in a group of 100ish
Literally the greatest minds of our generation in the UK. Certainly some of the top in the world.
I bet some Jew has made an IQ test that waits dummies higher to discredit IQ.

>countering an ad hominem with an ad hominem is bad now

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ok quote me where i said that god doesnt exist

>Christopher Langan
>200iq
>Believes in God
But "muh atheist with 389101736iq"

Attached: niggers stink.png (479x626, 527K)

why can't we just look at the world through a pragmatic lens while finding common threads of wisdom across various philosophies and religions?

>Uses "my iq is 9271719" as an argument
>Is shocked when is attacked personally

It's also why it's also coupled with proneness to mental problems. If you use your capacity for abstraction to forge this web of self-referential falsehoods presented as axioms, it takes smaller and smaller pieces of fact to push you over the line into psychosis.

There's a difference between having the humility to acknowledge that you cannot know everything and that we as observers are not capable of omniscience, and it's quite another to push the argument that simply because we may not know certain things, belief in a supernatural being or god is rational, which you appear to be implying. The latter is completely faulty logic.

I cannot know for certain that invisible unicorns aren't in my house right now, but rationality tells me that until some evidence is presented that they do actually exist, they are not worth consideration or belief.

Religious people/stupid people are incapable of basic skepticism, so they can't grasp even a basic concept like that.

>b-but smart people believe in god
how to prove that you're a retard:
make this stupid argument

because i dont want to delve in the 101 ways you are blatantly wrong, have this video you are not going to watch because of an excuse you're going to make in your next reply to me:
youtube.com/watch?v=Y201QzDdzbg

Did I say that you said that? You are implying that society doesn't need religion in order to have ethics and morality. You are saying that philosophy is all that is needed, while forgetting the grounds that most of actual non-modern philosophy is based on - religion. Your own lack of humility displays itself when you suggest that your view is absolutely correct and that the three thousand+ year-old tradition in philosophy and society is not.

>IQ is 528191
>Still doesn't understand a counterargument

god is actually our soul, and he's under the delusion he's us.

Attached: 20180728_103348.png (1784x931, 316K)

>Did I say that you said that?

>"The only thing that I know is that I know nothing."

>You are implying that society doesn't need religion in order to have ethics and morality.
>Religion is needed to control members of the sub-three-digit-IQ group

>You are saying that philosophy is all that is needed
never said that

>while forgetting the grounds that most of actual non-modern philosophy is based on - religion.
[citation needed]

>Your own lack of humility displays itself when you suggest that your view is absolutely correct
never said any of my views are absolutely correct

hi

>You are implying that society doesn't need religion in order to have ethics and morality
This is objectively true. Morality exists independently of religion. Religious people break their own moral rules at their convenience. The prison population is full of christians clearly engaging in unchristianly activity. So the idea that religion is what bestows morals upon humans is false. People act according to their own morals. Morality is from humans, not from religion. Which is why despite professing to be christians or that they have religious belief, these people are capable of violating their own religion. If religion were the bestower of morality, it would be impossible for humans to contradict it.

Religion did not invent morality. It consolidated a specific set of morals to follow.

Most people aren't smart enough to grasp raw philosophy so religion helps add the additional emphasis. Hell and heaven is a state of mind. Also when you die, all that will remain of you will be your legacy- and that will echo our far longer than your physical life so make your decisions now while you can.

>15 posts by this user
>"I never said anything"
So this is the power of Ashkenazi intelligence

>Most people aren't smart enough to grasp raw philosophy so religion helps add the additional emphasis.
This same argument can be used to justify liberal indoctrination through religious institutions.

Not every Christian is a good Christian. And Christianity acknowledge that one does not follow every rules every time, even saints

Seeing morally good people simply as the one who does not brake the law is wrong. Immoral people may engage in activities that are not punished by the law but still hurt society a lot. Adultery for exemple. I am sure that it is much higher in non-belivers than in practicing Christians

(((Exposed)))

>tfw tier 3 brainmaster

>Not every Christian is a good Christian. And Christianity acknowledge that one does not follow every rules every time, even saints
Then religion does not bestow morals, as it is quite literally incapable of making a human adhere to its principles. There is no limit to how much a human can break a religion's code. They can break it indefinitely, or just leave the religion any time they want.

Which means religion is not the source of morality, but humans themselves are. Religions are just an attempt to consolidate and justify a set of behaviors they think are superior, nothing more.

>Adultery for exemple. I am sure that it is much higher in non-belivers than in practicing Christians
Almost certainly not true. Christians cheat on their partners just like the rest of the population. Highly unlikely it's significantly lower than the general population, if it's even lower at all.

>i can make my own values without need of religion

sure thing jajajaj

I would be very surprised if you can find a single ancient philosopher or scientist who simply deferred to a God or deity being at play when he didn't understand some sort of concept or occurrence. No, there were much different pre-existing frameworks for the necessity of there being a Creator or God of this world in those times and sometimes an otherwise unexplainable event or phenomenon simply fell into those frameworks, if there wasn't some sort of theory created instead. What you stated is a mass oversimplification of the thought process, formulated as if there had been zero precedent for a Creator or deity before that conclusion.
Socrates (one of the most skeptical men in history) was religious, so were most of his predecessors (the Presocratics and the sophists) and most of his successors, like Plato and Aristotle but also even many of the enlightenment thinkers that succeeded them later on, and I don't think anybody would doubt their skepticism towards the established political and philosophical order at the time of their rise to prominence, do you?

>What you stated is a mass oversimplification of the thought process, formulated as if there had been zero precedent for a Creator or deity before that conclusion.
It's more accurate to say that you're attempting to muddy the issue and make it appear more complex than it actually is in lieu of actually providing an argument for why the unexplainable or unknown necessitates the existence of a deity/god.

>Socrates (one of the most skeptical men in history) was religious, so were most of his predecessors (the Presocratics and the sophists) and most of his successors, like Plato and Aristotle but also even many of the enlightenment thinkers that succeeded them later on, and I don't think anybody would doubt their skepticism towards the established political and philosophical order at the time of their rise to prominence, do you?
Citing the religiosity of old scholars or skeptics isn't actually making an argument for the existence of god, but is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority. This would be the same as me saying that doctors hundreds of years ago, very intelligent people by all accounts, would all stand behind bloodletting. They're such clearly intelligent individuals, so contradicting them would make you stupid, yes? That is essentially your argument.

Old philosophers and critical thinkers of the past are not wizards. They are capable of being wrong or believing fallacious things. Stop romanticizing them so much.