Religious Decline and Old Tactics - Do modern people find standard appeals unconvincing?

[Queen Elizabeth II]

I'm not speaking about trannies on twitter (though I have no doubt that normies will think twice before criticizing them on anything online), but cases like making a thug that threatened a pregnant woman with a gun a de-facto saint, or that argues against objective reality seen in a video feed, or one that jails people that insulted rich football players online. It's insanity to say that we don't have a situation where the law is split for two classes of people and the elites can do whatever they want against whomever they want as long as it's the lower class.

This is just rubbish scientism, the big questions of existence after death and morality have no "scientific" answer and chances are there will never be any. And those are the stuff that attracts people. Nobody gives a shit about how lightning works or why the weather is how it is, they want to know if there is a reason to be a morally good person. Pride and BLM are just vacuous distractions that people will eventually wake up from once they realize they spent most of their lives on making rich people richer.

I know this might offend some with religious inclinations, but indulge me for a moment.

When we look back into the few extant reactions by European and North African pagans during the rise of Christianity to the new faith; one of the common themes we can find is a mixture of revulsion and confusion. How, and why, was a carpenter, a carpenter who was an enemy of his own people and a criminal no less hailed as a God? Certainly, Hero Deities were not new, even the most artificial deities like Hadrian's lover Antonius were known (in fact he had quite a large following) and the deified emperors while not always liked were understood and respected. Today, the notion that Jesus was a criminal seems insane, but to non-Christian Romans this was a continual source of bafflement and some early Church Fathers spent quite a lot of time taking authors like Celcus to task about it. It's actually the only reason we know his name and what he wrote about, because all of his works were burned.

Rightly or wrongly, people see inspiration in strange places. Modern day wokeleft Americans see in St Fentanyl both an everyman and an ideal, and they will continue to do so.

As for insulting the rich and wealthy; name me an era in which insulting the masters would not see you taken to task? Insulting the Son of Heaven in China pre the red revolution would see you and your entire family line murdered. Telling Henry VIII he couldn't divorce saw him destroy what people thought was an invincible institution in England; the hand of God itself no less. The punishments have if anything become more lenient, as the boss can no longer demand sex, unreasonable hours or take the life of his workers on a whim (most of the time) in the western world.

The law has always, and will always, be split between multiple castes and tiers of society. The ruler can do as he wishes until cast down, and this is a universal constant in monarchies, democracies and dictatorships from pre history to today alike.

As for scientism...Not really. I chose a concern that is one of the most recent in the media; but has a spiritual as well as a material aspect. How can women be liberated from her history? What is woman? What should woman be? Is a vagina necessary to be a woman? Is woman born, or is she created by society? Beviour, Focault, Freud and many others have spilled much ink on this subject, and these books carry far, far more weight over society than scriptures today even if people may not be able to name them; their beliefs can often be found originating within their pages.

Being a moraly good person or life after death are the two main concerns of abrahamic faith (bar Judaism) true, but this is not universal or even the majority view. Confucianism has a very great deal to say about morals, but nothing on the supernatural. Shinto on the other hand has a lot to say about unity with nature, personhood extending beyond humans, what mans place is but doesn't have the slightest interest whatsoever in moral questions. That's not to say you can't "sin", but the "sin" originates from failing to follow purity rituals rather than jerking off to porn or slavery.

That article that was posted from spiked on here today on how Transgenderism as a philosophy seeks to destroy the concept of moral binaries I thought was excellent. We live in a world where for maximum profits, people need to be malleable and willing to tolerate a wide variety of products, even the ones that might inspire disgust in the majority. This is a concern for the moment, a set of big questions people actually do want answers for. Who am I? What is gender? Are we made by society or does society make us? Is my aversion to a particular activity instinctive or learned prejudice?

I'm not talking about the mechanics of lightning or how steam engines work. I'm talking philosophy, and the idea of working towards and building something greater than the individual, or leads to the development and flourishing of the individuals character.

Religion is not always supernatural, or even gazing far into the future. That doesn't mean it's any less of a religon.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

God damnit why quoting randomly doesn't work for some posts? Anyways @Dildo

I know this might offend some with religious inclinations, but indulge me for a moment.

When we look back into the few extant reactions by European and North African pagans during the rise of Christianity to the new faith; one of the common themes we can find is a mixture of revulsion and confusion. How, and why, was a carpenter, a carpenter who was an enemy of his own people and a criminal no less hailed as a God? Certainly, Hero Deities were not new, even the most artificial deities like Hadrian's lover Antonius were known (in fact he had quite a large following) and the deified emperors while not always liked were understood and respected. Today, the notion that Jesus was a criminal seems insane, but to non-Christian Romans this was a continual source of bafflement and some early Church Fathers spent quite a lot of time taking authors like Celcus to task about it. It's actually the only reason we know his name and what he wrote about, because all of his works were burned.

Rightly or wrongly, people see inspiration in strange places. Modern day wokeleft Americans see in St Fentanyl both an everyman and an ideal, and they will continue to do so.

St Fentanyl will disappear in a few years the same as the new Jesus himself Obama vanished after Trump was chosen. That's the big difference between religion and modern political cults - They have no longevity, they shed their skin like a snake and constantly updates themselves, what was considered die hard leftists 10 years ago are now considered alt righters. And that's besides the point that the political cults have no universal values and depend on the current culture in a specific place. That's also why anyone following them now will eventually be ostracized the moment they sticks to his own beliefs rather than repeat what is told to him.

As for insulting the rich and wealthy; name me an era in which insulting the masters would not see you taken to task? Insulting the Son of Heaven in China pre the red revolution would see you and your entire family line murdered. Telling Henry VIII he couldn't divorce saw him destroy what people thought was an invincible institution in England; the hand of God itself no less. The punishments have if anything become more lenient, as the boss can no longer demand sex, unreasonable hours or take the life of his workers on a whim (most of the time) in the western world.

The law has always, and will always, be split between multiple castes and tiers of society. The ruler can do as he wishes until cast down, and this is a universal constant in monarchies, democracies and dictatorships from pre history to today alike.

I disagree, there is a massive gulf between the ability to say different opinions 30 years ago and now. Both in mainstream media and the internet. I can agree that the law was always unfair depending on how rich you are, but right now there is a breakdown of the judical system in the USA that basically gives changes the rules to suit their purpose without anyone having the ability to talk about it.

As for scientism...Not really. I chose a concern that is one of the most recent in the media; but has a spiritual as well as a material aspect. How can women be liberated from her history? What is woman? What should woman be? Is a vagina necessary to be a woman? Is woman born, or is she created by society? Beviour, Focault, Freud and many others have spilled much ink on this subject, and these books carry far, far more weight over society than scriptures today even if people may not be able to name them; their beliefs can often be found originating within their pages.

This example is just modern bullshit that is constantly rewritten and ignores the fact humanity knew what women are since the species inception.

Being a moraly good person or life after death are the two main concerns of abrahamic faith (bar Judaism) true, but this is not universal or even the majority view. Confucianism has a very great deal to say about morals, but nothing on the supernatural. Shinto on the other hand has a lot to say about unity with nature, personhood extending beyond humans, what mans place is but doesn't have the slightest interest whatsoever in moral questions. That's not to say you can't "sin", but the "sin" originates from failing to follow purity rituals rather than jerking off to porn or slavery.

I very doubt there is a single average or above intelligence man alive that isn't fearful of death. Anyways none of those musings come into light in politics or consumerism, it's just about appeasing your urges this moment and following what every does next time.

That article that was posted from spiked on here today on how Transgenderism as a philosophy seeks to destroy the concept of moral binaries I thought was excellent. We live in a world where for maximum profits, people need to be malleable and willing to tolerate a wide variety of products, even the ones that might inspire disgust in the majority. This is a concern for the moment, a set of big questions people actually do want answers for. Who am I? What is gender? Are we made by society or does society make us? Is my aversion to a particular activity instinctive or learned prejudice?

I'm not talking about the mechanics of lightning or how steam engines work. I'm talking philosophy, and the idea of working towards and building something greater than the individual, or leads to the development and flourishing of the individuals character.

Religion is not always supernatural, or even gazing far into the future. That doesn't mean it's any less of a religon.

Transgenderism is the best example of how changing and insane the replacements to religion are. The subject itself only turned up the last 10 years and absolutely nothing from 10 years ago is considered valid or acceptable anymore, and you'd be kicked out for saying them. There is no philosophy here, just a game of Simon Says.

 

[YourFriendlyLurker]

Transgenderism is the best example of how changing and insane the replacements to religion are.

This. The whole woke cult and troons / non-binary shit is the best example how religios practicies work at modern age. The need to have a religion of some sort did not dissapear anywhere, people still look for someone to tell them how they should live, what they should think, etc, etc. Making your own decisions and judgements requires some level of autonomy and adult attitude to life, living according to someone else's dogmats is easier. Also note the things like BLM hysteria or opressed olympics, it reminds me of some twisted parody on early Christianic martyrs, again because religion as a system benefits from martyrs.

 

[Anal birth]

Ultimately The Bible is an non-cohesive mess full of people and places that don't exist and talking animals. Our understanding of, essentially, the Universe and our place in it prevents anyone that isn't basing their understanding on an a priori from believing it. The same goes for the other Abrahamic texts. You can suggest that aspects and segments of the Bible are just allegories or not literal but when does that stop and when does the real stuff begin?

As far as I can see, the only way for there to be a mass return to Religion is to provide irrefutable evidence that any interpretation of God is correct. Until then, Religion will continue its slow death in The West

 

[Berrakh]

I apologize for being absent and negligent these oat few days.

As far as I can see, the only way for there to be a mass return to Religion is to provide irrefutable evidence that any interpretation of God is correct. Until then, Religion will continue its slow death in The West

Sadly I do think a purely material recommendation is all that will sway some. Perhaps many.

Making your own decisions and judgements requires some level of autonomy and adult attitude to life,

And even then a lot of that is just recapitulating, in a selfish form, what elders knew already.

 

[Anal birth]

Sadly I do think a purely material recommendation is all that will sway some. Perhaps many.

There's nothing to be sad about. Christianity is dying and the main reason is that the bible doesn't make any sense. Ultimately its the fault of Christians. Same goes for the other major religions. All we're going to see is the God of the gaps from now on, and that gap is getting tighter and tighter day by day. If God exists and truly is omniscient he should've seen this coming and have a solution. He's also omnipotent after all so he has the capability to do something.

The world will be better without religion, we lose the major causative factor that drives good people to commit wicked acts.

 

[YourFriendlyLurker]

The world will be better without religion, we lose the major causative factor that drives good people to commit wicked acts.

The death of Christianity and other major religions won't mean a loss of causative factor. Most of people are not mature enough to exist without some kind of crutch, be it some ideology, identity cult, astrology, etc. The basic fears of dying, of being alone, of being an outcast will never dissapear. With time old religions became predictable and managable, they are like a well-tested drug, you know all the complications and know that in small doses it should be ok.

And even then a lot of that is just recapitulating, in a selfish form, what elders knew already.

Well it's hard to come up with something new in that field, if something worked great for 300 years, with high probability it will continiue working. It's sane conservatism.

 

[Berrakh]

The world will be better without religion, we lose the major causative factor that drives good people to commit wicked acts.

I’m not enjoying the post-God era so far

 

[Anal birth]

I’m not enjoying the post-God era so far

What you aren't enjoying are the death throes of Religion. Look at America for example, there is one Senator who is declared an Atheist, you can hardly say we're living in a post-God era. All that's happening currently is that the dwindling religious population is increasing the concentration of extremists and their vitriolic nonsense is creating a divide. To put this on the Atheists is extremely naive.

The death of Christianity and other major religions won't mean a loss of causative factor. Most of people are not mature enough to exist without some kind of crutch, be it some ideology, identity cult, astrology, etc. The basic fears of dying, of being alone, of being an outcast will never dissapear. With time old religions became predictable and managable, they are like a well-tested drug, you know all the complications and know that in small doses it should be ok.


Well it's hard to come up with something new in that field, if something worked great for 300 years, with high probability it will continiue working. It's sane conservatism.

When people are forced to learn to walk using a crutch of course they feel the need to walk with a crutch. People will still do evil things without Religion, I don't deny that, but by eradicating religion (I don't advocate for this by force, but by education) you remove the biggest driving factor behind evil.

We are well beyond the point of requiring religion to deal with our own mortality, isolation, etc. You can detach things like the golden rule from religion (it predates religion anyway) and other messages from religious texts and find meaning and comfort without believing an Inter-galactic Kim Il-Sung sent his son, who is also himself, to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to please himself for his own creation breaking rules that he established himself in an event he would've foreseen happening.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

What you aren't enjoying are the death throes of Religion. Look at America for example, there is one Senator who is declared an Atheist, you can hardly say we're living in a post-God era. All that's happening currently is that the dwindling religious population is increasing the concentration of extremists and their vitriolic nonsense is creating a divide. To put this on the Atheists is extremely naive.


When people are forced to learn to walk using a crutch of course they feel the need to walk with a crutch. People will still do evil things without Religion, I don't deny that, but by eradicating religion (I don't advocate for this by force, but by education) you remove the biggest driving factor behind evil.

We are well beyond the point of requiring religion to deal with our own mortality, isolation, etc. You can detach things like the golden rule from religion (it predates religion anyway) and other messages from religious texts and find meaning and comfort without believing an Inter-galactic Kim Il-Sung sent his son, who is also himself, to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to please himself for his own creation breaking rules that he established himself in an event he would've foreseen happening.

Trooning of children has nothing to do with the dying of religion. It has more to do with people substituting religion with something far worse. Also most politicians are not actually Christians who claim to be, most of them have been spotted doing literal devil/demon worship... Quite a few are atheist doing it merely for votes.

If religion is the biggest factor behind evil, explain socialism and communism, which are anti-religious and growing in size and often driven by atheistic populations. (IE: Militant atheist group in Soviet Russia) The issue is not religion when no one has a moral code more wickedness will happen not less. Morality is driven by no higher power than morality falls on the people how do you convince someone using subjective morality that pedophilia is evil or immoral without diving into subjective claims or stances? How do you then prove that it is immoral since it would then be based on subjective morality, and no "Natural law" philosophy is objective and has its own flaws of argument. Now imagine making the world that very argumentative stance.

 

[Anal birth]

Trooning of children has nothing to do with the dying of religion. It has more to do with people substituting religion with something far worse. Also most politicians are not actually Christians who claim to be, most of them have been spotted doing literal devil/demon worship... Quite a few are atheist doing it merely for votes.

Firstly, citation(s) needed for the devil worship. Secondly, what is causing this in Children? If you're taking the Satanist route then its inherently religious, same if you believe it is some kind of Jewish conspiracy. I don't believe its even anything to do with religion, or lack thereof. I think there are cases where parents push their kids into it for various reasons (I'm not doing that so I don't think I really have to justify it) or the understanding of such conditions has improved as well as treatment methods leading to an uptick in cases. In a similar way to how improved understanding of autism has led to increased diagnosis.

If religion is the biggest factor behind evil, explain socialism and communism, which are anti-religious and growing in size and often driven by atheistic populations. (IE: Militant atheist group in Soviet Russia) The issue is not religion when no one has a moral code more wickedness will happen not less.

You need to get your thoughts clear here. Firstly, Socialism and Communism are economic systems, neither of which were carried out in The USSR, North Korea or the CCP, I won't explain why here but just refer to the obvious source material (Marx). As you mentioned The USSR I will address it, however.

Before I go any further, I don't advocate the forceful suppression of Religion, I will fight and die for your right to believe whatever you choose, no matter how funny I find it to be, so to equate my stance to that of the USSR is a false equivalency. However, if you look at how the Soviet union was organized, it was inherently Theocratic, with Stalin replacing god. Stalin was infallible and breach of his law led to the Gulag, usually until you die. God, according to the Bible is infallible and breaching his commandments leads to an eternity of suffering. I can keep bringing things up but ultimately, the structure of the USSR was similar in some ways to the structure of Christianity and other religions. After all, Stalin trained to be a priest, he learned from the best.

I find it interesting that you don't bring up the Axis powers, I guess genocide, torture, and religious suppression is OK when its supported by the Vatican or the Japanese God-king? Same for the Crusades?

Morality is driven by no higher power than morality falls on the people how do you convince someone using subjective morality that pedophilia is evil or immoral without diving into subjective claims or stances? How do you then prove that it is immoral since it would then be based on subjective morality, and no "Natural law" philosophy is objective and has its own flaws of argument. Now imagine making the world that very argumentative stance.

This would work if morality didn't predate whatever religion you ascribe to. But that isn't the case. Given how this reads I'm assuming you're a fan of Frank Turek or similar apologists?

Morality is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one, even Darwin understood that 150 years ago. We evolved to oppose things such as murder or, as you suggested, paedophilia as it was for the common good to oppose it. Not killing people, for example, aids population growth, offers safety in numbers etc etc. Religion is just an incredibly outdated method of attempting to understand where we came from and how we should act.

You can't just claim incredulity and deduce that therefore God is the only solution. Its incredibly dishonest.

Edit: It also seems to be the religious that need to get their house in order when it comes to Paedophillia given how pervasive it remains to this day in the clergy.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Firstly, citation(s) needed for the devil worship. Secondly, what is causing this in Children? If you're taking the Satanist route then its inherently religious, same if you believe it is some kind of Jewish conspiracy. I don't believe its even anything to do with religion, or lack thereof. I think there are cases where parents push their kids into it for various reasons (I'm not doing that so I don't think I really have to justify it) or the understanding of such conditions has improved as well as treatment methods leading to an uptick in cases. In a similar way to how improved understanding of autism has led to increased diagnosis.


You need to get your thoughts clear here. Firstly, Socialism and Communism are economic systems, neither of which were carried out in The USSR, North Korea or the CCP, I won't explain why here but just refer to the obvious source material (Marx). As you mentioned The USSR I will address it, however.

Before I go any further, I don't advocate the forceful suppression of Religion, I will fight and die for your right to believe whatever you choose, no matter how funny I find it to be, so to equate my stance to that of the USSR is a false equivalency. However, if you look at how the Soviet union was organized, it was inherently Theocratic, with Stalin replacing god. Stalin was infallible and breach of his law led to the Gulag, usually until you die. God, according to the Bible is infallible and breaching his commandments leads to an eternity of suffering. I can keep bringing things up but ultimately, the structure of the USSR was similar in some ways to the structure of Christianity and other religions. After all, Stalin trained to be a priest, he learned from the best.


This would work if morality didn't predate whatever religion you ascribe to. But that isn't the case. Given how this reads I'm assuming you're a fan of Frank Turek or similar apologists?

Morality is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one, even Darwin understood that 150 years ago. We evolved to oppose things such as murder or, as you suggested, paedophilia as it was for the common good to oppose it. Not killing people, for example, aids population growth, offers safety in numbers etc etc. Religion is just an incredibly outdated method of attempting to understand where we came from and how we should act.

You can't just claim incredulity and deduce that therefore God is the only solution. Its incredibly dishonest.

First on the citation: Bohemian grove Alex Jones. He took recordings from within and spotted fake-sacrifice rituals in front fo a statue in front of Molok. Bush ("Christian") Obama ("Christian") Bill Clinton ("Christian") and many other politicians that are considered "Cristian" were spotted there. Almost like anyone can claim to be Christian to get Christians to vote for them. That's without all other whacky do politicians who have been caught worshipping weird statues, doing voodoo (including sacrificing chickens and more) if you aren't well read just do some research because it's pretty widespread and documented or many of them being parts of cults like Japan's PM.

It doesn't matter why it's happening this is where you are mistaking intent. People when having no moral guidance on a FACTUAL level will resort to their own subjective beliefs in morality. If you believe religion is not fact, then you believe morality is subjective. If not, then how is morality factual or objective. This is for YOU to prove not I. Since you are making the claim that wickedness comes from that, I claim whether religion exists or not people do immoral things and religion was merely a scapegoat, just as "progressivism" is a scapegoat for trooning of children. You don't even have to mention the Jews or Satanists for this, there could be some relevance but that's missing the forests for the trees.

It doesn't matter if its an economic system. The militant league of atheist were not economic militants, they killed religious people merely because they hated religion and were atheist. Almost like doing wicked things doesn't change if you are religious, agnostic OR atheist.

I'm not even really religious. This is the grave mistake, but even as a non-religious person I can see that without a tool of control (religion) people have no sense of morality, or view it as merely subjective. If one atheist believes pedophilia is moral and the other doesn't. How does Atheist B convince Atheist A that it is immoral using ONLY objective statements? Before you go "Well they can't consent." The Atheist A can then argue "Natural law" as a defense or the fact that the only reason we believe that's an immoral act is because of peer pressure or line in the sand.

Morality predated religion in what form, even early scientist believe earliest man believed in gods and formed moralities based off of them. Before soceities law of the wild kicked in, but law of the wild would protect pedophilia, so again how do you say pedophilia is bad? We both know or claim it's bad, but what defines it as such? Bad is subjective, what makes it immoral objectively?

"Morality is an evolutionary trait." Then explain parents trooning their children and finding nothing immoral about it. Explain people committing beastiality and legalization of it in recent years in quite a few areas. Is that an evolutionary morality or is immoral and some people are trying to make it out as moral? I don't believe morality is based on morality. Again not what I'm arguing. Religious people can be immoral, but when you say morality should be followed by a god or higher being it becomes an objective state where outside of that morality is questionable.

Ask three atheist what morality they follow, and I bet each of the three will still have differences. Even if not major, then why would they have different view points on morality and if morality is merely evolutionary then does that mean pedophilia is moral since it's been practiced in many lands for generations?

Darwing is obviously not correct in all stances, some yes, but this is easily defied, if we've evolved to oppose murder, then explain many countries where it happens frequently or how some people are more likely to commit it than others, and if you argue "evolutionary" so then for some it's fine and for others not?

I didnt' deduce god is the only answer. You are missing my point, religion is like a parent-child concept. Parents are gods to children. They make the rules. By removing the parents (or religion) from society is you've now claimed that children (people with no objective morality again: Natural law is not objective and fails because rape is natural in nature but you and I would argue it's immoral and Darwin can't argue his way out of this statement) so why do we consider it immoral but someone in SA might not, or other animals don't?

We were told it was wrong by peers as chidren and it became ingrained, that doesn't make it objective though, and this is what I'm trying to get across. Religion is a fine tool even as an exaggeration because it places a line in the sand for morality. Most normies do not function like some people on morality, if they did, child porn wouldn't be so common, and arguments on morality wouldn't occur because it would be evolutionary. It's not. Otherwise you wouldn't have people kill others, because they would have evolved from such means. If you say "well we've evolved you and I" Then does that mean morality differs to different people based on how far evolved they are which further proves my point?

Edit: In regards to your edit: You're putting the cart before the horse. Pedophiles come in every flavor, and infiltrate areas with kids regardless of belief or ideology. It's like socialist and communist, infiltration within the catholic church. Commies sabotage churches just as pedophiles do. However, I would never blame all atheist for pedophile atheist despite there being just as many.

Edit 2: To make my point more clear: When pointing out why pedophilia is wrong saying it's evolution doesn't defy it as immoral. You're merely presenting a theory that Darwin has presented, that doesn't make his theory more objective to the case point. Evolutionary objectivity is I have to breathe oxygen to live. I can't get out of that, and no amount of denial will change that. You don't have to present Darwin's theory to objectively prove I have to breathe air, now what I'm asking is for you to prove pedophilia is wrong using an objective basis, and the dreadful part is without a theory like Darwin's (which is not objective: It's a theory) or Natural law there is no way to denounce it as immoral. It becomes a case of "peer pressure considers it immoral therefore it is" But no one who is a pedophile will accept that as an objective measure in any honest pursuit, and that's the big issue of removing religion from society. It's why the founding fathers said the basis of the morality (or to forming a moral people) was the backing of a religion's ethics to the morality of the US. Morality is failing and religion is dying, it sounds very close to a correlation causation and an exact on point concept that the founding fathers pointed or hinted at.

 

[Anal birth]

@Mewtwo_Rain For whatever reason I can't quote you

First on the citation: Bohemian grove Alex Jones. He took recordings from within and spotted fake-sacrifice rituals in front fo a statue in front of Molok.

Jon Ronson was also there with Alex Jones during that recording as he was, if I remember correctly, filming a documentary on Alex Jones. He has a very different account of the night they spent there and believes Alex somehow misunderstood or developed an understanding of what was happening that wasn't true. He spoke with Joe Rogan about it, I know Jon did at least two Joe Rogan appearances and he talked about it in one of them. As far as we can tell, it is just some stupid elite club.

If you believe religion is not fact, then you believe morality is subjective. This is for YOU to prove not I.

I don't believe in subjective morality in the sense you're explicitly saying atheists do and I'm an atheist. So your entire point is undermined. If there is any burden of proof it is on you not me. You believe there is a moral law giver I believe in the good of the species. Don't shift your burden on to me. You have to prove that lawgiver exists before you can start discussing any further.

Since you are making the claim that wickedness comes from that, I claim whether religion exists or not people do immoral things and religion was merely a scapegoat, just as "progressivism" is a scapegoat for trooning of children. You don't even have to mention the Jews or Satanists for this, there could be some relevance but that's missing the forests for the trees.

I don't argue that evil is exclusively a religious thing, my point is that without religion you lose the main factor that makes good people commit atrocities.

It doesn't matter if its an economic system. The militant league of atheist were not economic militants, they killed religious people merely because they hated religion and were atheist. Almost like doing wicked things doesn't change if you are religious, agnostic OR atheist.

You aren't making the point you think you're making.

I'm not even really religious. This is the grave mistake, but even as a non-religious person I can see that without a tool of control (religion) people have no sense of morality, or view it as merely subjective. If one atheist believes pedophilia is moral and the other doesn't. How does Atheist B convince Atheist A that it is immoral using ONLY objective statements? Before you go "Well they can't consent." The Atheist A can then argue "Natural law" as a defense or the fact that the only reason we believe that's an immoral act is because of peer pressure or line in the sand.

See above. You just appear to have a confused understanding of morality.

Morality predated religion in what form, even early scientist believe earliest man believed in gods and formed moralities based off of them. Before soceities law of the wild kicked in, but law of the wild would protect pedophilia, so again how do you say pedophilia is bad? We both know or claim it's bad, but what defines it as such? Bad is subjective, what makes it immoral objectively?

We know that genetics drives morality, Dawkins has written a lot on this and there is a huge amount of literature on the topic, I would suggest you start there. The good of the individual is the good of the collective, particularly as humans were establishing themselves. Therefore we evolved both genetically and anthropologically to favour helping each other and not harming each other. Religion as we now know it was a tool to fill in what we couldn't comprehend. As with your original post you're making a false equivalency; Yes, belief in religion has been a pervasive force throughout our development, but not in the complexity we are used to, before the Abrahamic religions, and modern Asian religions, most people worshipped rain gods, or the spirit of mountains. Its very different to a moral lawgiver, such as the Abrahamic god.

Raping children is bad for the individual and the collective for a plethora of reasons, as rape and murder are in general, so, we developed our morality based on the good of the collective.

I'd like to take this moment to remind you that god endorses Paedophilila (as we recognise it), rape, murder and slavery in the Old Testament on several occasions and Jesus is clear that he has no interest in changing this, and infact goes as far as to endorse slavery. I have to ask you, if you believe there is a universal lawgiver do you therefore believe that Paedophillia, rape, murder and slavery are ok? Because if not you're opposing the universal law giver you're endorsing and showing that you yourself believe morality to be subjective.

"Morality is an evolutionary trait." Then explain parents trooning their children and finding nothing immoral about it. Explain people committing beastiality and legalization of it in recent years in quite a few areas. Is that an evolutionary morality or is immoral and some people are trying to make it out as moral? I don't believe morality is based on morality. Again not what I'm arguing. Religious people can be immoral, but when you say morality should be followed by a god or higher being it becomes an objective state where outside of that morality is questionable.

See above. Its just paragraph after paragraph of lazy strawman arguments. You need to show that parents allowing their children to be transgender is an inherently atheist thing first. As in with statistics, if they don't exist then your opinion is anecdotal and Hitchen's Razor applies. If that isn't the argument you're trying to make here then I don't actually understand the point you're actually attempting to make because it isn't coherent.

Ask three atheist what morality they follow, and I bet each of the three will still have differences. Even if not major, then why would they have different view points on morality and if morality is merely evolutionary then does that mean pedophilia is moral since it's been practiced in many lands for generations?

Same again

Darwing is obviously not correct in all stances, some yes, but this is easily defied, if we've evolved to oppose murder, then explain many countries where it happens frequently or how some people are more likely to commit it than others, and if you argue "evolutionary" so then for some it's fine and for others not?

If you're going to claim Darwin got things wrong, then you're going to have to back it up with evidence, you can't just handwave him like this. Its intellectually dishonest. If morality, as I keep saying, is an evolutionary trait, you can have an assortment of alleles, genotypes and phenotypes that lead to different responses to situations, add upbringing and trauma and you can understand why people deviate from the mean. When I'm talking about this as an evolutionary trait I'm talking about this as an average, you're effectively telling me "Hey look! There's outliers" and deciding that my argument has collapsed. If anything you're just proving me right.

I didnt' deduce god is the only answer. You are missing my point, religion is like a parent-child concept. Parents are gods to children. They make the rules. By removing the parents (or religion) from society is you've now claimed that children (people with no objective morality again: Natural law is not objective and fails because rape is natural in nature but you and I would argue it's immoral and Darwin can't argue his way out of this statement) so why do we consider it immoral but someone in SA might not, or other animals don't?

You haven't really made a point!

This is all well and good if you can prove god to exist. Our evidence points towards a naturalistic origin of our universe and everything after. You seem to think we should live under an invisible dictatorship because the invisible dictator knows what's best for us. Nowadays this is a painfully overused trope but that is one of the major premises of 1984. For the rest of this you're just restating the same point. I would really like to have this conversation but you haven't got your thoughts together on morality so you keep throwing these half-baked thoughts at me.

We were told it was wrong by peers as chidren and it became ingrained, that doesn't make it objective though, and this is what I'm trying to get across. Religion is a fine tool even as an exaggeration because it places a line in the sand for morality. Most normies do not function like some people on morality, if they did, child porn wouldn't be so common, and arguments on morality wouldn't occur because it would be evolutionary. It's not. Otherwise you wouldn't have people kill others, because they would have evolved from such means. If you say "well we've evolved you and I" Then does that mean morality differs to different people based on how far evolved they are which further proves my point?

Its a depressing situation when you have to argue for needing our hands held throughout our life, otherwise society will break down and we'll all start raping children. You're obsessed with Paedophillia, I don't quite get why, as I mentioned earlier, God likes pre-pubescent girls to enter sexual slavery, he was very clear about that in the old testament. God thinks its immoral to wear mixed fabrics and eat shellfish but its moral to enslave people, rape girls and murder. If you think that we're becoming more immoral as we turn our backs on religion, do you honestly think we should go back to a system of morality where wearing Jeans and a tshirt at the same time will get you sent to hell but putting your dick in a 12 year old is ok?

I say that doing to others as you wish to be done to you is the best code for us to live by. You don't need an invisible Kim Il-Sung to teach that. You clearly don't understand evolution along with morality so I think its pointless me talking about this argument anymore.

To conclude. You haven't suggested an alternative to the biblical god so until then I have to assume you're arguing for that one until you present one that I can deconstruct or accept. This God likes prepubescent girls to be taken into sex-slavery. This God likes murder. This God likes rape. If you're going to come at Atheists for rejecting this and reducing their morality down to doing to others as you wish to be done to yourself then you need to have a long hard look in the mirror. Because the god you appear to be advocating is more evil than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined and multiplied tens of thousands of times over. The time has long gone for us to need to believe in a higher power to find meaning and purpose to our existence. We can stand on our own two feet, we understand the processes of pretty much the entirety of the history of our universe and we have some naturalistic hypotheses and theories for the missing gaps. If you wish to reply and carry on your argument for a universal lawgiver, then I suggest you start by proving that lawgiver to exist, because any following arguments are moot unless you can do that and I see no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

@Anal birth since the post thing glitched again.

I don't believe in subjective morality in the sense you're explicitly saying atheists do and I'm an atheist. So your entire point is undermined. If there is any burden of proof it is on you not me. You believe there is a moral law giver I believe in the good of the species. Don't shift your burden on to me. You have to prove that lawgiver exists before you can start discussing any further.

No one outside of a higher power can believe in a true morality. The reason it is subjective is because there is no absolute basis for morality. You can say some concepts of morality are unfavorable such as murder. Because if you allow murder to be acceptable someone may indeed murder you then. That doesn't make it objectively immoral though. It is your perception something is immoral but who gave any person that power of judgement? Where is the objectivity of that judgement? How are YOU or anyone else a better moral arbiter than anyone else who doesn't follow that morality outside of numbers or theories that fall to scrutiny?

Also I don't have to prove a god exists, no more than I can tell a child that they should behave or Santa won't give them gifts, Santa doesn't have to exist to give them the implicative idea they should behave or an incentive too. Now a kid can behave without santa, and some people are moral without religion, but I'd argue the latter are less normal than the formal. If not then why do so many laws keep being made to toe the moral line if it's so obvious and so common, unless people are naturally immoral and have to be kept in line hence why we have cops and other figures to keep crowds in line with the law or "moral law" or "moral rule." Then again even the law is subject to corruption so what difference does it make? Who gatekeeps the gatekeeper? Why are political leaders constantly caught breaking the law and "morality" despite them being the rulers of our law outside of religion? Almost like their belief in their own forced morality is fake.

I don't argue that evil is exclusively a religious thing, my point is that without religion you lose the main factor that makes good people commit atrocities.

That's a round-about way of saying that religion is the primary factor for good people to commit atrocities and it makes no sense whatsoever. In a world where religion doesn't exist people will still do the same immoral acts, the only difference is they can't scapegoat religion. otherwise in what text or religion outside of cults do they implore the usage of immoral actions by any basis? Take pedophilia, where does say Christianity say "molest children" with open arms. Even outside of Christianity, slavery existed prior to its existence, will you blame slavery on religion or is it that morality is not so objective and before you argue evolution, outside the western world slavery is quite common. So what makes slavery immoral in objective form?

See above. You just appear to have a confused understanding of morality.

No. I don't think so, (see below) Morailty as a concept in humanity wihtout a higher authority whether real or imagined can not be anything other than theory, appeal by popularity or some other subjective based format of agreeing to that moral law/rule/etc.

We know that genetics drives morality,

And an intelligent person can easily disagree. You're replacing your dogmatic religion worship with what seems like dogmatic science worship in the same vain. The reason I can disagree is if I take someone from a slavery based country where it's acceptable and bring them to a western country they may drop the idea of pushing slavery. What evolution is there to be had on that morality. Let's make sure we define morality here:

Religion as we now know it was a tool to fill in what we couldn't comprehend.

That's a theory. Not objectivity. Even if it was fact, hypothetically that doesn't change the argument.



morality

mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-

noun​

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.

In all three you still have to define what makes it OBJECTIVE and FACTUAL. Which you haven't done. Also evolutionary morality would mean it's still not objective as most people have different evolutions of morality. Why do all countries have different laws and conducts for those laws? Just because some are more agreed upon doesn't make it any less agreed by peer pressure. "The majority agree therfore."

Dawkins has written a lot on this and there is a huge amount of literature on the topic,

You're sidestepping here. How does what he writes make it objective? You can't answer that basic question because it's not objective. I can even use your implied statements from earlier against you here. Pedophilia existed before religion. So who deemed themselves moral authoritarian and why should I beleive it's objective. YOU have to pove this not I. I can at least say if everyone agrees to morality then it should be followed, but NOT EVERYONE AGREES. Thus you have peer pressure/appeal by popularity NOT objectivity.

Therefore we evolved both genetically and anthropologically to favour helping each other and not harming each other.

Yet we have people who defy that order. So either they're not human or have not evolved which means their "human evolution" is different than ours. Which is it? Also helping and harming are subjective statements, you don't even realize you're pushing subjectivity as objectivity and conflating the two.

before the Abrahamic religions, and modern Asian religions, most people worshipped rain gods, or the spirit of mountains. Its very different to a moral lawgiver, such as the Abrahamic god.

Which considered human sacrifice moral. Some still persists today, which means people have evolved ot adopt that moral system of right and wrong which is different from YOU and I.

Raping children is bad for the individual and the collective for a plethora of reasons, as rape and murder are in general, so, we developed our morality based on the good of the collective.

Who is "we." There are plenty who have done the opposite. There are countries where child marriage is fine with or without religion, so what makes THEIR moral system different from ours? They would have defied your theory of evolution of morals, therefore you theory is a theory and subjective.

I'd like to take this moment to remind you that god endorses Paedophilila (as we recognise it), rape, murder and slavery in the Old Testament on several occasions and Jesus is clear that he has no interest in changing this, and infact goes as far as to endorse slavery. I have to ask you, if you believe there is a universal lawgiver do you therefore believe that Paedophillia, rape, murder and slavery are ok? Because if not you're opposing the universal law giver you're endorsing and showing that you yourself believe morality to be subjective.

Animals rape in nature. In fact they have no qualms of rape, and we are animals too. So why would our morality be different from 99% of nature's. That includes pedophilia. Slavery is done all across the world regardless of religion, and is still dominate in most non-western countries and even in our western countries sex traffickers and more exist. They may be considered illegal and thus "immoral" by our legal system, but that doesn't change other countries where it is legal. So how does that work? Either NOT EVERYONE EVOLVED the same which means different levels of morality or you are confusing objective with a subjective theory of evolution of how we adopted our current moral system. That moral system which is subject to change. Objectivity doesn't change.

See above. Its just paragraph after paragraph of lazy strawman arguments. You need to show that parents allowing their children to be transgender is an inherently atheist thing first. As in with statistics, if they don't exist then your opinion is anecdotal and Hitchen's Razor applies. If that isn't the argument you're trying to make here then I don't actually understand the point you're actually attempting to make because it isn't coherent.

No. It's not a straw man I'm providing a typical counter before it gets asked, but even then I never argued atheism was the main cause of bad behaviors. I literally pointed out in my first post to you "They have substituted religion with something far worse." Religious people frowned on trans, many atheists are part of the progressive stack. Don't even play this disingenuous game Atheism + took on many of progressives ideas and adopted Tranny tolerance which led to this literal slippery slope. Not religion. So people replaced religion with tranny worship and equity and "The science"... Hmmm......

It is easily coherent, you just refuse to accept what people are saying by scapegoating religion which you basically admitted above. I don't know how this is hard to comprehend.

"This is all well and good if you can prove god to exist. Our evidence points towards a naturalistic origin of our universe and everything after. You seem to think we should live under an invisible dictatorship because the invisible dictator knows what's best for us. Nowadays this is a painfully overused trope but that is one of the major premises of 1984. For the rest of this you're just restating the same point. I would really like to have this conversation but you haven't got your thoughts together on morality so you keep throwing these half-baked thoughts at me."

No. I don't have to prove ANY god exists. This is where you fail to comprehend the point. You can make a fake god that moralizes X, Y, and Z, if you say that god's (whether fake or real) morality is objective then that goes beyond peer pressure, theories of morality and evolution (which I easily disproved without trying based on slavery alone) If everyone in the community agrees to that morality or line in the sand then it becomes the morality of the people. However, since morals change over time just like slavery used to be legal, it is NOT objective in nature, in claiming that you alongside any other theorist on morality do not have any understanding of morality. this is why people think atheist aren't moral. Not because you can't have a moral code, but because you seem to think people are blank slates who either all evolved with the same values or moral guidance or beliefs, and contrary to your belief THEY DON'T. Certain moral values most countries share but not all of those same moral values. Same on punishments for committing those acts of immorality.

Its a depressing situation when you have to argue for needing our hands held throughout our life, otherwise society will break down and we'll all start raping children. You're obsessed with Paedophillia, I don't quite get why, as I mentioned earlier, God likes pre-pubescent girls to enter sexual slavery, he was very clear about that in the old testament. God thinks its immoral to wear mixed fabrics and eat shellfish but its moral to enslave people, rape girls and murder. If you think that we're becoming more immoral as we turn our backs on religion, do you honestly think we should go back to a system of morality where wearing Jeans and a tshirt at the same time will get you sent to hell but putting your dick in a 12 year old is ok?

I say that doing to others as you wish to be done to you is the best code for us to live by. You don't need an invisible Kim Il-Sung to teach that. You clearly don't understand evolution along with morality so I think its pointless me talking about this argument anymore.

To conclude. You haven't suggested an alternative to the biblical god so until then I have to assume you're arguing for that one until you present one that I can deconstruct or accept. This God likes prepubescent girls to be taken into sex-slavery. This God likes murder. This God likes rape. If you're going to come at Atheists for rejecting this and reducing their morality down to doing to others as you wish to be done to yourself then you need to have a long hard look in the mirror. Because the god you appear to be advocating is more evil than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined and multiplied tens of thousands of times over. The time has long gone for us to need to believe in a higher power to find meaning and purpose to our existence. We can stand on our own two feet, we understand the processes of pretty much the entirety of the history of our universe and we have some naturalistic hypotheses and theories for the missing gaps. If you wish to reply and carry on your argument for a universal lawgiver, then I suggest you start by proving that lawgiver to exist, because any following arguments are moot unless you can do that and I see no point in continuing the discussion.

I literally look at society and see parents gleefully trooning children out for their "virtuous conduct." That they believe is "helping everyone out" Do you think this is a virtuous thing to do to children. Of course not, or at least I hope not, but they do. You have to realize 1. We are not all evolved in the same manner. This is a fact. Due to backgrounds, socio-economic factors, and more. People have evolved morality differently across the world. Certain moral concepts remain similar but they are not 100% identical or near identical across the board. With or without religion. My point in regards to morality is not about atheist, this is the big mistake being made.

My point is: Atheist are just as subject to being dogmatic and not understanding the difference between morality and subjective claims. Between evolution and theory. You have presented this case well on your own without my help.

In regards to my other points in your issues with religion, it doesn't matter what I think of morality. that was never the point, what I'm asking you is even if I say "That's not ok." What moral authority other than agreeing with you that it's wrong do either of us or those who agree with us have? They don't. They have an appeal of popularity and an agreement to a certain amount, but what of those who disagree? Do they not match up to evolution because they defied those moral boundaries? They have too, otherwise the theory we evolved to do X doesn't make sense when certain groups do Y. Even then based on tribalism that's not even fully true that we try to help everyone else, we try to help OUR TRIBE not necessarily everyone elses. It also gives a slippery slope to bleeding hearts, it we don't let illegals in, are we not fulfilling our moral evolution by letting them in and helping them and to what extent do we draw that line, and that is where no matter what writings you will present you will find subjective disagreements on that theory. Just because countless wrote on it doesn't mean a damn thing when such a scenario dead-stops it.

The purpose of religion which you still don't get wasn't about God being real. It wasn't about god's claims being real. It was about similar to your claim of moral evolution, that the church was a form of moral evolution except it took a line in the sand that the community followed in agreement and ostracized those who disagreed for better or for worse, but there was compliance.

Now you live in a world, where people think "helping" means letting illegals in who may be up to no good. To trooning out their kids for tolerance and virtue (which fits morality definition) and the worst part is by this theory since people are doing this, then it must be "moral evolution" in process, and if you'll ask me about a religion that burned pedophiles hiding in their midst, and a non-religious group who praise those who do such insane things as a prideful virtue signal, I'll take the former any day, because the former at least play by the rules already set, even if some are questionable, the latter change the rules day to day and seem to be tolerating pedophiles actions for a new form of virtue, .

Also, that god is more immoral than the god of abortions and trooning children, and enabling pedophiles in their midst instead of crucifying them? No. I never saw in churches people agreeing with selling girls into prostitution because the old testament was done away with in the old world, even though many countries still practice it and have even before religion. It just called out the rules for committing those acts in a world that condoned it and still does. But the new god of "The science" attacks peoples good intentions to help people and allows them to do just as ridiculous and evil things, and if you can't see that then open your eyes.

I don't need to suggest an alternative to any god, I only need to suggest a few things. 1. People are not equally evolved. Some people are intelligent and understanding of morality. Some people the lights are on but nobdy is home that act on pure impulse with no regard to the outcomes or shortfalls of their actions. 2. Religion was merely a tool for the large mass of society that act impulsively and replace religions with new gods (celebrities, youtubers, Atheism +, progressivism, etc.) when they lose the old ones. and 3. That morality is not objective when based on a human's perspective. The perception of morality is based on "good and bad." When does by human perception IS SUBJECTIVE and no "Natural law" theory is still just that, and still faulty for many things I already discussed.

Just because You and I understand morality or at least base morality (because I'm sure somewhere in our morality we disagree on some things) doesn't mean the majority of normies do, and the fact that society is embracing these insane virtue stunts should tell you most people are followers. They don't lead their morality or know their morality they merely listen to others and then abide by what others have said. That's the scary part, and what should be eye opening if you've paid any attention for the last 20 years of society. Doesn't mean God or Christianity should be believed or followed, what it does mean, when it was in control, there was less chaos and insanity and at least you knew the rules even if monsters were in the church at least they were condemned when caught, these monsters in new age "religion" stick up for each other and protect each other and won't even denounce their immoral actions merely play them up as "stunning and brave" in insane glee.

Religious nutters were bad, but these Atheist + progressive twats are even worse, and I say that with no hint of humor.

 

[Fek]

Here's a fun one for those who seem to think religion is "dying" or otherwise leaving humanity behind:

How do you get from an "is" to an "aught"?

I have a point in asking. Promise.

 

[Anal birth]

@Mewtwo_Rain I think given we can't even find a middle ground and I really see no point in repeating the same things again and again that we should just leave this here. God is certainly more immoral than these parents, he killed the entirety of mankind and all the animals except for two of each kind because a man and a woman ate an apple. He also set up that man and woman to fail so he could kill and punish their ancestors ad infinitum for reasons unknown. You keep claiming that parents are forcibly changing their children's gender yet you're yet to provide a single source for this despite me asking for one multiple times. I just don't see the point in carrying on.

 

[Fek]

I came here expecting a reply to my previous post thanks to a notification. It would seem it magically disappeared and I think I'm beginning to see why that might be:

God is certainly more immoral than these parents, he killed the entirety of mankind and all the animals except for two of each kind because a man and a woman ate an apple. He also set up that man and woman to fail so he could kill and punish their ancestors ad infinitum for reasons unknown.

Why do people pull this crap? This completely absurd oversimplification and misrepresentation of scripture as some kind of "gotcha" moment? You even admit to your own ignorance of the topic in doing so, as though it is to be celebrated. And you go on to make it even worse with the following:

You keep claiming that parents are forcibly changing their children's gender yet you're yet to provide a single source for this despite me asking for one multiple times.

This reeks of one trying to argue in bad faith. You cannot possibly be this ignorant of the current state of things, and if by some remote chance you are? Then you need to stop wasting other people's time asserting on topics of which you clearly haven't the knowledge.

After taking the time to read through your stuff and hear you out, I should not be arriving at the following conclusion reliably:

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

@Mewtwo_Rain I think given we can't even find a middle ground and I really see no point in repeating the same things again and again that we should just leave this here. God is certainly more immoral than these parents, he killed the entirety of mankind and all the animals except for two of each kind because a man and a woman ate an apple. He also set up that man and woman to fail so he could kill and punish their ancestors ad infinitum for reasons unknown.

You have still completely missed the point, in your attempt to be a pseudo intellectual atheist you have forgone the conclusion that humans are dumb animals who have no concept of morality hence why it changes all the time and your Darwin claims are not accurate about his theories. The point of religion was always a control mechanism on society so that communities could maintain an agreed moral standard, whether one believed in god or not. Many atheist were once part of said communities despite not believing in god, yet the world was more obviously moral then than now. it's not about whether god is more moral than humans which is a dumb argument which was never debated and whether a god exists which is NOT the point.

You keep claiming that parents are forcibly changing their children's gender yet you're yet to provide a single source for this despite me asking for one multiple times. I just don't see the point in carrying on.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/201...orm-double-mastectomies-on-healthy-teen-girls is just one example.

You can also look up A&N section and look up "Trans kids/children" and find plenty of articles of parents driving young kids to become troons. Even better is little kids are not apt to give permission to trooning out at their age so it's obvious the parents are pushing it. You can also google search "Dramatic rise of kids identifying as transgender" and other keywords to find countless articles of explosions of transitioning children from ages 5 to even 12. Articles of speciallist worried about the sudden jump, and even some specialist talking about how it's child abuse.

If you can't even do this amount of research it's not because you didn't want to but because you are intellectually lazy, so of course we have nothing further to argue, when you didn't even get the original point. Not because it was hard to understand but because of your anti-religious dogma if you admit religion wasn't some cult or was a tool of control for societieis morality you have to admit it wasn't this great evil that the 70s-90s kids were propagandized through movies (Hollywood) and more. You'd also have to admit that normal people are just immoral miscreants who are barely kept in check by laws and even rule systems, and if they aren't even going to follow the rules of man or god, how you could ever argue people have evolved to be moral is utter ignorance of the human condition.

I have to ask, have you ever actually been out in society or talked to people, or looked into crimes being carried out in your area or heard about many events in the real world? "Evil" is carried out everyday by many people and if by your logic religion is going away and this great evil still exists, then it can't be religion that caused it but mankind itself perpetuates.

Edit: In before "ZOMG Christian news source discounted." There are plenty of non-Christian news sources, I just chose the first related source when looking up "Trans children increases." Don't be dumb.

Why Is Transgender Identity on the Rise Among Teens?

A new study of social contagion raises important clinical and ethical questions.

www.psychologytoday.com

he view adopted by trans youth, as summed up by one parent, seemed to be that:

“In general, cis-gendered people are considered evil and unsupportive, regardless of their actual views on the topic. To be heterosexual, comfortable with the gender you were assigned at birth, and non-minority places you in the ‘most evil’ of categories with this group of friends. Statement of opinions by the evil cis-gendered population are consider phobic and discriminatory and are generally discounted as unenlightened.”

Parents further reported being derogatorily called “breeders” by their children, or being routinely harassed by children who played “pronoun-police." The observation that they no longer recognized their child’s voice came up time and again in parental reports. In turn, the eerie similarity between the youth's discourse and trans-positive online content was repeatedly emphasized. Youth were described as “sounding scripted," “reading from a script,” “wooden,” “like a form letter,” “verbatim,” “word for word," or “practically copy and paste."

Read that final line guy "Sounding scripted" Almost like someone is preaching the gospel of "Troons"... Read the full thing though it's eye opening.

WHY ARE SO MANY FEMALES COMING OUT AS TRANS/NON-BINARY? — Gender Health Query

Gender clinics show large increases of female teens & young adults with gender dysphoria. Social contagion is a likely factor. Females are prone to body dysmorphia & body harming fads.

www.genderhq.org

Ignore why they say the increase is happening look at the ratio/percentile and charts. This is not normal.

 

[Anal birth]

@Mewtwo_Rain Whatever you say buddy.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

@Mewtwo_Rain Whatever you say buddy.

I'll take that as you conceding to not understanding the argument and or being intellectually lazy especially after I posted multiple links and even gave you easy search results included on this site. Nice try to make me waste my time any further.