New Atheism

>Logical positivism dies
>Try to revive it with Nu-Atheism Materialism
>Fails again

These cucks get BTFO in academic circles over and over and they remain blind. Dennett might be senile or full blown deluded

>>Though that thought process doesn't offer any insight into whether god exists at all.
Him not posting the full and complete logical argument and defense of the position does not make it less logical or untrue. His claim is not to provide insight but to make a simple case and he is perfectly consistent in doing so.

Also there are three positions, two of which lead to A.
The third leads to a universe of 'brute facts' and nothing else which completely undermines reason, as reality is overhwelmingly ordered and such an order is essential for reason to exist in any useful form at all.

A restatement of this observation is in the cosmological constant and the shear unlikeliness of a universe of stable laws in the sum of all possible universes. There is a half 'solution' to this in physics. The less efficient a potential reality, the less likely it is to exist, so even if there are near infinite alternates, the weight is exponentially less (by several orders of magnitude) as things veer away from our current order. All we have to show is that this reality is the most efficient and in many cases it is. Sadly its a half solution because the 'law of efficiency' is inherent and necessary in all laws of physics yet itself has no origin or explanation. It is not rational to end inquiry here, and given the nature of reality the empirical working out would look more or less like the graduation of logic that a man jumps to faith in god as creator in the mind of the theistic philosopher, only that god will be understood in terms of forces beyond which no complete awareness can stretch due to our complete inability to access god through limitations with the physical universe (for reality to be ordered, god must necessarily be immaterial even as he actualizes all of reality all the time).

The universe of brute facts also does not prevent gods existence, just makes it questionable or unlikely.

His arguments are correct.
read Edward Feser.

I'm still an unironic atheist and no amount of retarded contrarianism or mob mentality on Jow Forums is going to affect me. I'm allied with you guys because you're the only people who are brave enough to name the Jew. When it comes to your spirituality we are not allies and I consider all of you to be fucking retarded.

Attached: Flammarion Engraving.jpg (1920x1200, 587K)

He actively advocates eliminative materialism. He's obviously delusional.

why can't atheists use a literary metaphor and allegory? the human bible was written by a human, remember

Who’s the guy on the bottom left, Mr. Morden?

Same. Best I can do is LARP as a Christian since only they have traditional values anymore.

That was titled by a christian you dumb fuck. It's obviously an insult to those 4 trannies.

You numbskull, new atheism failed because it was infiltrated by sjws, and the whole movement was kinda dumb, try building a community on lack of bullshit, just get a bunch of individuals. In a way imperial truth made more sense as in 40K style.

(((Sam Harris)))

Hoy shit someone said it. I'm an athiest but I appreciate traditional values. A few need to be updated and not everyone needs to follow them to a T (although if you have children I think you should follow them more closely than not) but traditional Christian values are largely a positive way to live.

wat r traditional values

Yes. These morons and their fanboys were happy to burn traditional structures to the ground out of vindictive autism and all 4 of these men were consumed by the progressive fallout. How people can still believe atheism (I mean ideological atheism not necessarily non-belief) doesn't lead to pure degeneracy and societal decay genuinely astounds me.

Attached: 1540354838479.jpg (638x800, 74K)

>burn traditional structures to the ground
like what, you fucking turbo autist?

They aren't "traditional Christian values", they are just basic human guidelines.

>That was titled by a christian you dumb fuck. It's obviously an insult to those 4 trannies.
Sure it was, bud. Whatever you say.

Attached: 8B7CE7C2-F5DD-448D-A3A9-9CB7ECE046B9.jpg (767x1189, 348K)

It was 50% Jew

Attached: Hitchens_Dennett_Dawkins_Harris.png (1280x720, 715K)

It was alright. But I see it as a logical first rejection of religion being a faulty description of reality, but New Atheism doesn't take it to the next intellectual step of denying God's existence, which I find childish to not undertake. It's essentially all about being repulsed by God and talking a lot about science, but science doesn't disprove God's existence or give a person a reason to not believe he exist. Positive Atheism will be the next movement when the intellectual void of New Atheism consumes the movement from within.

>atheists literally need an explanation of how metaphor and allegory represent the soul
If I were to tell you of the pain of losing a father or the heartache over being rejected by a woman you love or conversely sharing a kiss with the woman you love for the first time or even how it feels to be on a hike and come through the trees to an overlook where before you is a beautiful view or a long drink of cool clean water on a hot day or the warmth of a fire on a cold night or how it feels to be victorious in competiton or how it felt to be wrapped up in a blanket and cared for by your mother while you were sick, how do you know what I’m describing? An atheist will tell you, we’re all just cells and this is entirely random and when you’re dead you die. And yet, all of these feelings everyone in this thread and everyone throughout time can relate and understand just by me reminding them of the memory because they’re universal and transcendent and will never be forgotten. The proof of God is right there in front of the atheists face and yet they still reject it. The fact that the atheist can use a metaphor from 2000 years ago to reject God is entirely proof of God. An atheist rejects the memory of life lived. And no matter how the story ends, the story began. An atheist is someone trying to prove a story doesn’t exist while being a part of the story. An atheist simply doesn’t like the story. Once upon a time...

It was a psychological play.
End game>>> Don't believe in God.

within infinite time and infinite space, yes perfection is possible, in fact it's definite. Im not an atheist but this argument doesn't hold water

>Focus criticism on Christianity and put Islam on the backburner
>Realise too late that Islam is the real problem and Christianity was the main force holding it back

T'was autism. It's a shame also as Dawkins is genuinely redpilled in a lot of ways that aren't immediately apparent, but he's superficially misguided and heavily bluepilled in a few critical areas.

Attached: Dawkins.jpg (599x382, 51K)

>Atheism is the rejection of Logic and Facts in favor of the Belief that there is no God.
What logic and facts do you have to support a God claim?

Are you my American twin?

Values held in the past. Due to the fact that the values also supported a civilisation to this point, 'traditional' is usually associated with any value which upholds a society and protects it from degeneration.

So, pro-fertility, pro-defence, pro-pride, etc.

By the way, if you're going to take any positive 'atheist' value from Dawkins, it is that memes value their own survival.

If Christianity can survive by acting against the interest of its genetic foundation (Europeans) it will. If Christianity grows by betraying Europeans, it will.

Attached: When Christmas is Spot On.jpg (342x500, 92K)

>An atheist will tell you, we’re all just cells and this is entirely random and when you’re dead you die
What does this have to do with your previous rant about feeling things? Atheists are also human, feeling emotions isnt exclusive to theists.
>And yet, all of these feelings everyone in this thread and everyone throughout time can relate and understand just by me reminding them of the memory because they’re universal and transcendent and will never be forgotten
They aren't the same memory, though. Things occur to people in reality that they wont forget for many reasons. But it's a memory of something that occurred, it's not this big mystery.
>The proof of God is right there in front of the atheists face and yet they still reject it
Did I miss the proof somewhere?
>The fact that the atheist can use a metaphor from 2000 years ago to reject God is entirely proof of God
Is this like if I say the word 'god', then I automatically believe in a god? i dont get your argument here.

notice they all die slow painful deaths

>I appreciate traditional values
Like what?

Atheism won and normal people moved on.

Atheism doesn't work because the vast majority of people are too stupid to have virtues without it. So ya it kinda was autism

They aren't 'basic human guidelines' because they aren't universal. I agree they should be, but they aren't. As long as their is inequality, religion is needed to give people something to believe in. Thus giving them those 'basic human guidelines'

>Atheism doesn't work because the vast majority of people are too stupid to have virtues without it

Attached: 1539660656354.png (1329x1218, 706K)

My professor was spitting nu-athiesm bullshit in class today. "Ohh hurr durr so if God is omniscient then he cannot be omnipotent because uhhhh why do kids get sick?" Nigga are you fucking 15 years old? Did you just have your first thought this morning? Fine, maybe he is one or the other, maybe he hates us, maybe he doesn't know about us, maybe he doesn't care, who gives a shit? All nu-atheists are Christian Atheists. They say "uhh well I don't believe in Thor either" but that isn't what I mean. They debunk God using the Bible, they can't get away from it. They say "well God can't be real because of these verses in the Bible" and they act like they're "liberated" from Christian influence. This is a grown ass man and a tenured professor, he's lived a full life, he has kids and a wife and shit, he's traveled and seen the world, and he's talking about fucking omniscience and omnipotence like some twink faggot with a Xanga account. You aren't saying anything bro. It is almost insulting to the class too. "Oh wow Professor Faggot, that never even crossed my mind! I'm glad I'm paying tuition so you can enlighten me to the truth!" You can get that level of truth from a car ride to the gas station with any degenerate stoner in the United States. YOU'RE A POLITICAL THEORY PROFESSOR YOU BEADY-EYED COCKSUCKER. I'm an atheist but fuck man get over it already. I almost want to become a Christian out of spite.

kek. I prefer religious people over non-religious

Some people define truth as god, so yes.

>i dont get your argument here.
Sure you do. You might disagree with a particular description of God, but nothing you do or say will or can disprove the existence of God. You just don’t like the story.

Nothing exploded...and created everything Goy.
You have a problem with that?

Attached: el-resplandor-animacion.gif (500x366, 351K)

Whatever makes you sleep at night and overcomes your fear of death user...

Atheists get cucked harder by religion than anyone else on earth. They literally define themselves by something they don't believe exists. They're the adult equivalent of high school kids doodling pentagrams on their notebooks to piss off their evangelical parents.

A rational person looks at his religion and sees its flaws. Maybe he believes it on some level, or maybe he suspects that its all made up. However, he also sees that a lot of people genuinely believe and get real comfort out of the idea of religion, that religion provides people with an identity and a common thread that binds their community together, and teaches good moral values to his kids. He acknowledges that the Christian faith has been instrumental in the development of Western thought. He might decide to keep going to church for these reasons. Alternatively, he might decide that religion really isn't for him, that he doesn't believe, and that he doesn't feel any particular need to go to church, so he decides to stay home.

Either way, he realizes that the existence or nonexistence of God can't ever be definitively proven or disproven, and isn't something that is going to change based on what he thinks about it, so there's really not much point in arguing the subject. If he believes, he believes. If he chooses not to participate in organized religion, he doesn't feel the need to convince others to also stop participating. If people want to wake up early on Sunday and eat crackers, that's their own business and there's really no reason to dwell on it. He can think of better things to do with his time and intelligence than trying to convince people not to believe in something that gives them happiness.

So was I accurate in my statement of it being like stating God exists because I use the word God? I'm genuinely not sure I understand it.
>you do just dont like the story.
I've read the bible twice, it's not horrible. But to say I dont like it is a silly attempt at a point. How could you possibly know what I like based on a single post on Jow Forums ? Instead of being dishonest and combative over the internet, why couldn't we just have a discussion?

Ehhm...user. Since I'm assuming you are believer: You guys kinda destroyed ancient cultural miracles, initiated holy bloodsheds, burned every poor bastard, halted every scientific effort for centuries, oppressed and exploited the common people and molested underaged children.
All under the guise of your spiritual holiness.

Let's just say that you don't get to talk shit about other related people/things on that subject.

Attached: 5430.jpg (600x600, 43K)

No, it's just materialism combined with arrogance. In other words, anglos being anglo.

I do think it's funny all four of those guys are left-liberals and two of them are Jewish, but the New Atheism movement literally paved the way for the alt right.

It’s very simple. The story is happening right now. All around us. You are a part of it. You can not like how the story is being told, and you can like how the story is being told, and you may not understand the story, and you may think there is a deeper meaning to the story than what you’re being told. However you feel about the story, the story is still being told. Like when kids play the game of telephone and whatever was said at the beginning may change many times until it gets to the end where it’s an unrecognizable tale. The ultimate truth is not what reaches the end it’s that the kids played a game of telephone together.

>The story is happening right now. All around us
Life is occurring, correct.
>However you feel about the story, the story is still being told
Ok.
>The ultimate truth is not what reaches the end it’s that the kids played a game of telephone together.
What does this have to do with a God?

>I'm assuming you are believer
I'm actually not. I just grew out of my teenage fedora-tipper atheist phase a long time ago. Maybe someday you will too.

In any event, most of the religious people I've known in my life are not witch-burning child molesters; however, nearly every self-proclaimed atheist I've ever met is an insufferable pompous cunt. For instance, your post. All you're really doing here is trotting out tired old arguments about "muh holy wars" and "muh witch trials" and "muh child abuse" as if religion is the only motivator to do those things and as if the removal of religion from humanity would somehow put an end to it.

anyway:
>destroyed ancient cultural miracles
wat?
>initiated holy bloodsheds
wars are fought for all kinds of reasons which usually have nothing to do with religion. religious wars aren't any bloodier than political ones, and in any event most religious wars are just political wars in disguise anyway.
>burned every poor bastard
really? all of them? it's a wonder there are any poor bastards still left on earth.
>halted every scientific effort for centuries
nope, wrong again. monasteries preserved most of the knowledge of the previous ages, and most significant scientific breakthroughs between the fall of Rome and the modern era were made by either Christian or Mohammedan scholars.
>oppressed and exploited the common people
it just wouldn't be a leftist atheist rant without some random blathering about class struggle, now would it?
>molested underaged children
because obviously that's something that is only done by religious people.

Anyway, you sound like you're about 19 and just had your first day of college yesterday. You should probably get some sleep, your mom probably doesn't want you to be up all night talking to child molesting anti-science war mongers all night.

Redpill me on faith

Belief without evidence. Gullibility.

>What does this have to do with a God?
Go ahead. Sound it out. You can do it. You’re right there. Do you exist? What would you answer if I asked, are you, you?

>Go ahead. Sound it out. You can do it. You’re right there.
We are in a story that you assume I dont like. Are you comparing the bible to this "story" we are living in?
>Do you exist?
Yes.
>What would you answer if I asked, are you, you?
You defined you as you in reference to me. So yes. Lol.

It used to be brave, now it's a lot more acceptable in the US to be an atheist so it seems needlessly edgy looking back, but people forget how much has changed in just 20 years.

The Kingdom of God is within you, user. You are the story, your story, and your story is a part of the larger story that is also your story. If I were to ask you if you exist and if you were to ask yourself if you exist, you do, you are, just as I am. And you would say the same to me, that “you are” as in me, and you would say to yourself that “I am” that you do exist. I think therefore I am and I am that I am and I am all that was, is, and will be. And because of this reply you’re going to think I mean this from a strictly Christian perspective but it can be applied to any and all. I’m just using that and those metaphors because it’s easier to help you understand. The same way that the “four horsemen” of atheism use that metaphor for its easier for the western tradition to understand they’re attempted bringing of the end of the theistic tradition and why they’re fools and the irony is rich. That they use metaphor and allegory to try to decry and destroy the story that they themselves are a part of and have been since the beginning of time no matter how much they hate it and yet they still use the common metaphors to describe that which is beyond description and has been since the beginning of time. It’s embarrassingly stupid and they’d be ashamed if they weren’t such soulless and dull automatons, tbqhwyfam.

Even if you believe in the most atheistic forms of evolution and outlook, religion, at the very least, was a part of evolution needed to advance consciousness and humanity. You can see this because no other life form exhibits religious beliefs. At the very least, religion is an evolutionary necessity.

Thread literally should've ended there

That's a lot of autism in one post. Well, putting aside your opening/closing bs:
>wat?
read history. For example, who destroyed the Statue of Zeus at Olympia one of the 7th Ancient Wonders of the World?
>wars are fought for all kinds of reasons which usually have nothing to do with religion. religious wars aren't any bloodier than political ones, and in any event most religious wars are just political wars in disguise anyway
>m-muh politics
You can kick the bucket all you want in this one. Myriads of Jihads and Crusades (even against fellow Europeans) speak for themselves about your religions. DEUS VULT and ALLAHU AKBAR to you too.
>really? all of them? it's a wonder there are any poor bastards still left on earth.
What? If that was an attempt on being a smartass, you failed. I'm talking about torturing and burning ALIVE every "heretic" and "witch", as well as occasional nutjob, you wanted. Because that's divine and holy. And Love. So much for "the religion of love".
>nope, wrong again. monasteries preserved most of the knowledge of the previous ages, and most significant scientific breakthroughs between the fall of Rome and the modern era were made by either Christian or Mohammedan scholars
Strange, because it was Arab Muslims who burned the Library of Alexandria and was Catholic Christians who burned Giordano Bruno (a friar) for his theories in exoplanets and the universe or the church's clueless minglings with Copernicus' and Galileo's heliocentric model of the universe.
>it just wouldn't be a leftist atheist rant without some random blathering about class struggle, now would it?
I'm not leftist. I'm right wing. Just not a hypocritical idiot. Or a cold bastard, since you seem to not give a fuck about anything. "Meh...class struggle. Next."
>because obviously that's something that is only done by religious people.
The problem is that is BEING done by religious PRIESTS.
>"Eh...just because everyone does it, y-you can't blame only me for..."
Really?

kikes, homos, and attentionwhores

>The Kingdom of God is within you, user
Did we move on from what you were trying to say earlier? What is happening here
>That they use metaphor and allegory to try to decry and destroy the story that they themselves are a part of
They're not using the metaphor and allegory, if everything they argued against were these things, then why do people claim things in the bible are true? How do you determine what is supposed to be taken as a fact, and not allegorical and metaphorical?
>...the story that they themselves are a part of and have been since the beginning of time no matter how much they hate it and yet they still use the common metaphors to describe that which is beyond description and has been since the beginning of time.
They aren't ignoring the "story", just the story you're assuming is true. So, after all of this preaching, how does any of this get you to a God?

No, just too full of faggoty jew ideas.

Listen, Sam, if you're going to continue being intentionally obtuse then I can't help you. If they, or anyone, never used metaphor and allegory they could never communicate. That's the point. If each generation only used strict fact, all would be soulless automatons like you and be unable to understand anything. Metaphor and allegory IS the realization of shared experience. If everything is only based in logic and fact there are no two equally shared experiences so no two people could understand each other. Just as if you and I kissed the same girl, our two kisses would not be identical fact, it would be two wholly different realities based on all of our different experiences and times in our life when it happened, but we would have both still kissed the same girl. As for the bible, people claim it's true because it's what they've been told and they repeat it. Like a link in the aforementioned kids game of telephone. That doesn't make the beginning or the end or the fact that they're telling a part of the story any less true. Nothing should be taken as fact and, if you knew anything about science, you'd know science agrees. That still does nothing to eliminate "God" or whatever word you want to use to describe "God." The only one assuming I believe any story to be true is you because you're trying to break holes in whatever story YOU assume I believe to be true. You are the one assuming things to be true and you HAVE to otherwise you have nothing to debate against because you know that none of it can be debated. So you pick a the Christian perspective to attempt to deconstruct and yet without that foundation of the Christian perspective, you have nothing to deconstruct. All I worship is that I am. It's like what Paul said of the Agnostos Theos in the Areopagus in Acts 17:22-31. And I'm not even Christian.

Nice blue heeler you have there, fren.

>Listen, Sam, if you're going to continue being intentionally obtuse then I can't help you.
I'm not asking for help, im asking for something to demonstrate your God claim.
>That's the point. If each generation only used strict fact, all would be soulless automatons like you and be unable to understand anything.
I'm sorry to hear that's your opinion about atheists. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
>Metaphor and allegory IS the realization of shared experience
>If everything is only based in logic and fact there are no two equally shared experiences so no two people could understand each other
Metaphors or allegories can't be factual or logical? You're not making sense.
>Just as if you and I kissed the same girl, our two kisses would not be identical fact, it would be two wholly different realities based on all of our different experiences and times in our life when it happened
>but we would have both still kissed the same girl.
Wow, you had to type all this out to tell me our lives are different?
>As for the bible, people claim it's true because it's what they've been told and they repeat it
So repeating the words of a book make it true?
>Nothing should be taken as fact and, if you knew anything about science, you'd know science agrees
You've gone backwards to prove a God claim now, what is this overly worded road i'm having to drudge through?
>That still does nothing to eliminate "God" or whatever word you want to use to describe "God."
Not being able to disprove a claim isn't proof for a claim.
>The only one assuming I believe any story to be true is you because you're trying to break holes in whatever story YOU assume I believe to be true.
When did i do this? Quote/link me directly, please.
>You are the one assuming things to be true
No, i'm the one asking for evidence for your assertion that you've assumed is true. You've spent all of these words on not proving your claim of a God. Why?

>prove God doesn't exist
That's your demand in reverse. One of us has evidence we exist. The other has zero evidence we don't exist. Good luck with your argument.

>prove God doesn't exist is "provide evidence for your God claim"
No. I get you don't want to provide evidence for your claim, but don't dodge the question for a bunch of posts, then get mad and leave. Hopefully you understand now why and where your ideas need to be fixed.

It is the greatest gift to man the pattern recognition masters who found the jew behind the curtain

Attached: 1538549363331.jpg (225x225, 6K)

Can relate. Gr8 rant, user.

>and that leaves about 95% of America as atheist
You can be serious can you?

Weren't they all molested by priests or whatever?

>Hopefully you understand now why and where your ideas need to be fixed.
No, Sam, hopefully YOU do because you're not actually listening and you're still trying to come to God through the physical and material. The funniest part of all this is you're going to close your computer tonight with a smirk satisfied with yourself. Again, for the last time, you're demanding I prove God to you by telling you which kid in the game of telephone is telling the truth and what that kid is saying when I'm trying to tell you, again, for the last time, that God has nothing to do with what any of the kids are saying and the fact that they're playing telephone together at all is all the proof needed. If you can not understand this simple metaphor, you are not listening and that is no one's fault but your own. Sam, in order to be an atheist you have to fundamentally reject existence itself. An undeniable fact we exist. We are experiencing existence. The proof is all around us. Something is here. And the fact that you can think of yourself and perceive this something is further proof of this something. If I were to go back and try to convince you that something can not come from nothing I would have to go back and be Parmenides, at least. But that's not what I'm going to do because I'm not talking about God in the sense that he's an old man with a white beard who impregnated Mary, nor that he said "Let there be light", although that may be the easiest way for you to perceive of God and, hell, that may ultimately be what he/it/unknown word actually is. It doesn't matter. You could argue that existence is eternal, in the sense of existence existed at all times. You can also argue that time must have "began". For how can an infinite amount of time pass for it to be "now" and if you were to ask yourself that you would be Kant and you would be looking for an antinomy. Ultimately, you're here and I am.

Again, good luck with your argument, when or if you ever come up with one.

Attached: file.png (896x458, 154K)

well to be fair, how many Christians have actually read the Bible

>tfw you pay tuition to listen to basic bitch atheistic babble that you could find in a YouTube comment section
And they ask why universities are fucked.

The Universe is NOT infinite, this would violate thermodynamics.

It was fine untill women took over and make it into the first SJWs

You're fucking retarded on levels not thought possible, please gas yourself.

In the United States I don't have the stats with me but I assume not that many. This is the main issue as to why things such as New Atheism or Atheism+ came into existence in that less knowledge of their own religion coupled with Liberalism in general you then have movements that try and push people even more away from religion and towards liberalism which funny enough actually causes people to reject liberal ideals and to go back towards traditional religions.
TLDR: American Christians don't know a lot and atheism+ was going to happen and was going to be rejected.

>No, Sam, hopefully YOU do because you're not actually listening
To what? Your assertions and preachy rambling on about nonsensical & irrelevant points.
>Again, for the last time, you're demanding I prove God to you by telling you which kid in the game of telephone is telling the truth and what that kid is saying
I didn't ask anything but to provide evidence for the God claim. This is a perfect example of you dodging the question. You having to dilute it to a point of where it fits this odd analogous point is silly. If you state God exists, and you have evidence for a God, then provide that evidence. This is so simple, yet you're too busy writing out this text wall to just be honest. Cut the ad homs and the whole storyline of:
>The funniest part of all this is you're going to close your computer tonight with a smirk satisfied with yourself.
Aside from this being another assertion you can't prove will be the case, i'm simply asking for proof for what you believe God is. I'm not here to "win" or whatever nonsense you want to attribute to me. I want to hear what you think is evidence. That is it. Can you honestly do this simple task?
>Sam, in order to be an atheist you have to fundamentally reject existence itself.
Why?
>If I were to go back and try to convince you that something can not come from nothing
I didn't make this claim, now did I? You keep making more assertions for some reason, i'm simply asking for evidence for your God claim.
>You could argue that existence is eternal, in the sense of existence existed at all times. You can also argue that time must have "began". For how can an infinite amount of time pass for it to be "now" and if you were to ask yourself that you would be Kant and you would be looking for an antinomy. Ultimately, you're here and I am.
Re-read this. This is a textbook dodge. You don't believe in God because you assert I believe in these things. You cannot just be honest and state what you believe and why?

>primarily focused on christianity instead of islam
yeah it was autism

As a right wing atheist I'm scared shitless in what's about to happen to the public trust in scientific institutions, if the left doesn't fuck it up the right will, and we'll get "Jewish Science 2:Electric Boogaloo".
We'll fall behind in areas that offend whomever's viewpoints. Meanwhile China is going full out on the Manhattan Project 2:Electric Boogaloo.

the same applies to Europe. Atheism arose from scientific revelations which make Gods more and more irrelevant and criticism of the Bible and Christianity.

>back towards traditional religions
don't know about that, you may be right.

Also
>Again, good luck with your argument, when or if you ever come up with one.
I didn't present one. Again, for the billionth time, I'm simply asking for what proof you have for your God claim. I wish you understood that.

I disagree mainly in that with White nations having some force to unite us we do very well. Personally I think having strong faith does this. Basically humans need something more than themselves, some sort of metaphysical force. Good job being a nationalist but I honestly think you need to realize most people aren't going to fall in the same boat as you. What you can do is not bring it up with Christians who are also nationalists but instead talk about what we agree on.

Let me put it yo you like this. Christianity is a building(we'll say it's literally a church building) now every so often some outside force comes by and tears the roof off and then that force(in this case atheism+) leaves thinking it destroyed the building and won when all it did was tear the roof off and we will just rebuild like we always have. This also has happened to Europeans throughout our history so even if you dislike Christians or Christianity at the end of the day before it recently got subverted it was a positive force for European peoples

I am interested in seeing how Christianity will develop further.

>a positive force for European peoples
meh, at best it is merely the same as paganism. Instead of sacrificing humans, it was autistic religious wars.
furthermore Ancient Greeks and Romans already discussed evolution and natural design even before Christianity even existed.
Pagans were also warriors just like Christians and both had almost the same political and social systems.
What did it bring that was so beneficial?

Furthermore China is an Atheistic nation and they are hardcore nationalists, precisely because they did not have a moralizing religion.

From what I understand China has many underground Christians(as in millions) frankly I think with their strong national pride and strength they will wind up being Christian. Probably in many decades though to be honest. Now onto how it helped Europeans I would say before the schism firstly with Catholics and Orthodox and then later with Protestants that it helped mostly unite Europe to not strictly worship their local gods but to have one God who united them. To be fair you could make the same claim about Caesar. Frankly it comes down to that it was the natural course for us. My Christian perspective basically is that with my beliefs I can read the Greeks then Thomas Aquinas and feel moved to help my people and improve myself. Does this mean Pagans could do the same? Maybe in Europe somewhat but as for the United States that's a no.

Jow Forums will just ignore that Hitch destroyed religion with facts while Sam gave a true spiritual definition of God. But you all will say cuck shit defending organized religion

Because it's as comfy as their parent's basement.

Once you start trying to understand the birth of the universe theres really only ome conclusion.

Which is?