Why are (((Atheists))) like this?

[Matt Damon]

you sure?

Nothing vs omniscient, omnipotent deity?

Yeah, pretty sure the former is simpler.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Atheists are narcissistic man children. They fundamentally misunderstand what religion is.
Religion answers 3 things.
How we got here?
What happens when we die?
What is morality?
This is why various types of paganism are not distinguished with different names.
Any true skeptic of God would claim to be agnostic, because they simply submit that they do no know. The atheist secretly believes in God but denies him even to himself out of spite “how dare someone imply that my accomplishments are not my own.” Christianity is the only religion that addresses how God is unable to be proven by making faith the prerequisite to salvation. They stir in their own mind miserable because the hardest thing for any man to do is to openly proclaim that they can not do something alone. And that is exactly what submitting to Christ does. Do not argue with atheists, humiliate them so they may be humbled and then exalted by the Lord

Paganisms don't have different names just because paganisms died out. Voodoo, Shinto and Hindu are treated like full religions and they're nothing but West African, Japanese and Indian paganism that managed to survive on luck to present day.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Is Atheism just another form of Luciferianism?

After all, if there is no God, then Man is God.

View attachment 4969068

By definition, when viewed from christian perspective, yes it is.

Because the christian world view in regards to gods is black and white. If someone isn't christian they are in a fallen state by definition.

Paganisms don't have different names just because paganisms died out. Voodoo, Shinto and Hindu are treated like full religions and they're nothing but West African, Japanese and Indian paganism that managed to survive on luck to present day.

Paganism is just the roman name for polytheism. Or more accurately, non-christian non-judaic theism.

 

[Kung Pow]

Is Atheism just another form of Luciferianism?

After all, if there is no God, then Man is God.

View attachment 4969068

I wouldn't call it Satanism/Luciferianism. Real Satanism/Luciferianism is about doing horrible things that you know full well that they are evil. No justification over a higher ideal or narrative, unlike the Prometheus type ""Satanist"" like KingCobraJFS that believe that Satan gave the fire (fruit) of the gods (God) to humanity for a higher good. Nope, he did because he felt like doing it and he knew it was evil and that is it, no justification that would lend yourself a possibility of forgiveness from God.

​

 

[Agent Sandoval]

If someone isn't christian they are in a fallen state by definition.

If someone is a Human they are fallen by definition. Being saved by the grace of Christ does not mean you're unfallen.

Is Atheism just another form of Luciferianism?

After all, if there is no God, then Man is God.

View attachment 4969068

The primary pathology of the atheist (and some modern theists, the dumb shits) is that they want God to exist in the sense that they want a verifiable, measurable and accountable God. They naturally find no evidence of God existing because that would be incredibly stupid. Luciferians are likewise obsessed with the material, so overlap isn't a surprise. The obsession with making God out of Man isn't unique to atheistic thought though, Gnosticism is definitely theistic in origin and is as old as Christianity. Atheists who do go the route of trying to supplant God with human machinations could be said to follow a Gnostic religion.

 

[Matt Damon]

They naturally find no evidence of God existing because that would be incredibly stupid.

...Why is that stupid? Of all the things that ought to be self-evident in their existence (and not some retarded "God is self-evident by proxy through his works!" bullshit), shouldn't the omnipotent creator of the universe be the most obvious?

If someone claims the ground doesn't exist, we can all agree they're insane because we can just go outside and see it, point at it, touch it, examine it, and investigate it scientifically. It's right there. And yet the supposed creator of something so clearly there has to be intuited to exist through faith, feelings, and vague notions of spirituality.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

Thing is, atheism isn't a belief system.
It's just "I don't believe in god" and that's it, it doesn't come with a set of rules to follow.
Any other belief and behavior of an atheist is a separate thing.

Then why is literally every atheist like this?

 

[Precious Bodily Fluids]

They aren't, you just hear from anti-Christian atheists more because they care more about the topic and are louder. The internet allows superposters to dominate online discourse at the expense of normies who post less.

10 percent of Twitter users create 80 percent of tweets, study finds - Poynter

From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

www.poynter.org

About 80 percent of all tweets from U.S. Twitter users come from just 10 percent of users. These users tweet 138 times per month, while the median Twitter user only tweets twice per month.

I find that ex-Mormon and ex-Evangelical atheists are the loudest anti-Christians. These personalities dwell on their daddy issues stemming from unhappy childhoods. They are also routinely become the wokest atheists because they were poorly raised by their retarded parents and continue their dysfunctional fundie behaviours in a new, secular form.. But most atheists from more moderate backgrounds just drift out of the religion and don't care about it anymore.

I went to various Catholic schools in the UK and it was fine. I never had any bad experience with Christians and I don't possess any antipathy towards them at all. I just don't believe in any of it. This is far more common and I barely post on the internet about it at all. The ironic thing here is that all the most annoying edgelord reddit atheists are the sons and daughters of you "submit to god! types lmao.

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

Sure, not believing there is a god is in itself a "belief", in the sense that there's an amount of faith involved. Yes, there's no conclusive evidence that there isn't a god, so believing that requires a degree of faith.

But what I don't get here is people thinking that all beliefs require equal amounts of faith. Believing the Christian god exists and believing there's no god at all requires faith, but I think the former requires more faith since that belief requires more assumptions you have to take as true.

That atheism is also a belief isn't a gotcha that makes atheists look like hypocrites, because there are varying degrees of "faith", and a charitable interpretation of atheism isn't that they claim to have no faith in anything at all, but that they don't need to place their faith in things as often or as strongly as theists do.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

Nothing vs omniscient, omnipotent deity?

Yeah, pretty sure the former is simpler.

As a metaphysical concept, "nothing" is actually anything but simple. Nothingness by itself is an absolute concept which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, even theoretically. The idea of something popping into existence out of nothing is difficult to conceive, when considering the actual nature of nothingness.

 

[Matt Damon]

As a metaphysical concept, "nothing" is actually anything but simple. Nothingness by itself is an absolute concept which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, even theoretically. The idea of something popping into existence out of nothing is difficult to conceive, when considering the actual nature of nothingness.

And an omnipotent, omniscient invisible Jew is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

And an omnipotent, omniscient invisible Jew is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

I'd say that is up to whoever is doing the interpretation. Still, people have argued about this for thousands of years and still don't have an answer, so both concepts are rather complex.

Overall religion is supposed to try to answer questions that science cannot. Religion should not replace science, and science should not replace religion.

Not judging all atheists here, but a lot of the reddit-tier edgelord atheists don't understand neither science nor religion, which results in them trying to cram science into metaphysical questions that science can't answer, essentially turning science from a method of inquiry into a religion with its own dogmas and such.

 

[Wesker]

Is Atheism just another form of Luciferianism?

After all, if there is no God, then Man is God.

View attachment 4969068

Liberalism sure is. They both accept the same things.

 

[870EVO]

If there is no God, then math is God - not man.

No Math is racist.

 

[Matt Damon]

Overall religion is supposed to try to answer questions that science cannot. Religion should not replace science, and science should not replace religion.

The problem is that the borders of these ontological problems have been pushed further and further back over the centuries by scientific inquiry and then religion moves to goalposts and says "okay, now THIS is the domain of religion".

And very often, religion has nothing useful to say on such matters anyway. Even cursory examination quickly leads to "God did it" or "only God knows that" or "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" and other useless platitudes. It answers nothing - it just gives a false feeling that someone is at the helm to people who can't tolerate uncertainty and the rudderless nature of the world.

Not judging all atheists here, but a lot of the reddit-tier edgelord atheists don't understand neither science nor religion, which results in them trying to cram science into metaphysical questions that science can't answer, essentially turning science from a method of inquiry into a religion with its own dogmas and such.

I completely agree. As I said previously, truth or facts or science or however you want to characterize it is necessarily descriptive - it may inform us in our decision-making, but it will never provide us with answers. That is, by definition, outside its scope.

 

[Betonhaus]

I always considered god to simply influence probability. The laws of physics are his creation, so any influence he does has to work within those limits. That would inherently make it impossible to prove that god exists if the evidence you're looking for is when the laws of physics were broken.

 

[Matt Damon]

The laws of physics are his creation, so any influence he does has to work within those limits.

That doesn't track with any of the Abrahamic religions.

That would inherently make it impossible to prove that god exists if the evidence you're looking for is when the laws of physics were broken.

He could just be there. He could be there just as certainly as the sun in the sky or the phone in my pocket. There's no good reason for the God of the universe to hide himself from any form of detection.

And even then, if you subscribe to the Old Testament, he used to be around all the time and then just stopped showing up one day for no particular reason. It makes no sense.

 

[Betonhaus]

He could just be there. He could be there just as certainly as the sun in the sky or the phone in my pocket. There's no good reason for the God of the universe to hide himself from any form of detection.

What makes you think he's hiding? perhaps he's in a form that's always there but we just don't recognize.

The crux of the problem is that the bible is a document that is thousands of years old that over time it has been rewritten and translated, with salient details suppressed.

 

[Matt Damon]

What makes you think he's hiding? perhaps he's in a form that's always there but we just don't recognize.

And here we go with the ooga-booga shit.

Why is that necessary except to explain away his obvious absence? Again, why is he not as self-evidently there AND recognizably so as the computer I'm typing this on? What purpose could that possibly serve?

 

[Betonhaus]

And here we go with the ooga-booga shit.

Why is that necessary except to explain away his obvious absence? Again, why is he not as self-evidently there AND recognizably so as the computer I'm typing this on? What purpose could that possibly serve?

...have you noticed all the references associating god with light? perhaps his physical presence is within that glowing ball of fire in the sky.