Christians in ages past did great things, but today most of the greatest minds are all atheist. What happened?

What choice does he have? He's damned. He might as well take as many people down with him as he can.

>I'm completely irresponsible, the post.

>but today most of the popular minds are all atheist. What happened?
ftfy

Lucifer did nothing wrong, all he wanted was more democracy in heavens but God said:

>No lol :DDD

>I'm 14 year old and I just read Milton

Communism happened. For intellectuals hungry for political, cultural, social and economical power, communism was better than a Christianity that preached the principles of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty.

That's why most intellectuals and scientists are communist. It's not because communism is right, it's because communism empowers them, while Christianity doesn't.

Isn't satan and God buddies but not really but still work together in a way but not really.

Without evil, how can there be good?

Think about this aye

If the devil exists, he acts in league with God

the devil would be the ruler of the underworld (hell) while God is the ruler of olympia (heaven)

why would the devil hide in the shadows? you would think that the devil would try to actively recruit and promise a heaven-like experience in hell for his followers. There's none of this happening, and it is barely a part of Christian literature.

Most bible thumping Christians are either parroting what their bible says or have a siege mentality towards everything against any part of their brand of Christianity. You can't easily reason with someone who believes his or her beliefs are unquestionably true, even more if their beliefs have no concrete or theoretical basis.

Because the church was the center of intellectualism for centuries. They founded, and thereby controlled the universities. students were considered minor clergy by law, and were often required to study divinity before anything else.

Nor was there the intellectual base for secularism there is today. the most radical were deists, because a world without some sort of god did not make sense to them

That doesn't explain it.
People always have a motive and a goal in mind when they do anything, whether they have any control over how the various physical forces of the universe end up manipulating their neurons and consequently dictating all of their thoughts and actions or not.

>What choice does he have? He's damned

isnt the whole point of your religion that were all damned from our original sin?

oh yeah i completely forgot about that infinitely loving and forgiving creator of all things, i guess hes just too damn stubborn to forgive the one dude who actually knows for a fact he exists, it sure doesnt sound like some bullshit conjured up by some ancient mongoloids who didnt think anything through and went with something that sounds cooler

>That's why most intellectuals and scientists are communist.

source please

>retarded Christian arrives to prove OP right
kek

>Without evil, how can there be good?

prettty easily, i dont have to brake your legs so other people realise that having legs is good right?

You don't need a free will to be responsible.

> What happened?
Science proven that there is no God and all smart people choose a science instead of jew fairy tales.

The west abandoned Scholasticism in efforts to get away from the church and gradually their modernized view of God and religion got torn to shreds over time.

It's easy to see the similarities between Marxism and Catholicism and religion generally - all encompassing belief systems, with a strongly moral basis, while professing an 'objective' world view.

We don't need religion anymore

>but today most of the greatest minds are all atheist.

Hey, this is a matter of opinion and I'm not going to knock you for it, but on the subject of "atheism", to me, a great mind is a skeptic, a person who allows for possibilities while questioning, not a person who shuts his mind because he "thinks" this makes him superior.

Science doesn't "prove there is no God". The first position in legitimate science is that the observer affects the outcome of observation. That is what a "real scientist" believes. Whether there is, or is not, a greater "intellect" behind the cosmos as a whole can't necessarily be determined from our vantage point, at all, and this affirmation will always make a "real scientist", at minimum, agnostic.

Checkmate, atheists.

> but today most of the greatest minds are all atheist. What happened?
[citation needed]

>Today, your average Christian is a moron or a mentally fucked up person
Veeky Forums Christians are a special breed of mentally deranged, repressed weirdos.
reddit atheist are a special breed of mentally deranged,repressed weirdos

Someone much better than you once said, "God does not play dice".

That guy in your video is just poorly associating cause and effect, kinda like you are in your post. He thinks that, as a result of their actions toward him people suffer punishment. He doesn't consider that people who are mean to him for little cause have an underlying issue which pervades in most aspects of their lives and this will lead to negative results in all sectors. You think that all christians are simple but the truth is, while many "people" are simple, some are christian.

So basically an atheist that isn't just doing it because it's a trend?

It doesn't really prove there isn't a god since a skeptic can't really prove a negative.
But there are no useful predictions that can be made for god, be his existence true or false, so it generally is the kind of thing a real scientist can just disregard if they choose to do so.
If a real scientist must be agnostic towards god at minimum then they too must be "agnostic" towards methods like homeopathy that would use the same methodology to keep themselves upright.

Argument from authority.

I am Hindu when I use my thinking faculty I came to conclusion that idea of God is false but emotionally I don't desperate or anguish or dejected on death of God on the contrary emotionally I anguish God is not meet me I am longing to see the God . He is there but my efforts are weak so not meet him.This is wide difference of both civilization.I am anguished to meet the God Nietzsche and Dostoevsky were anguished God abandoned them

It's not about "proving a negative", man. That is a bit of a lacking argument. I can't think of a single modern theory which did not start as some outlandish hypothesis, and that's kinda how ideas work, being filtered down through a process of verification. There's just no way, currently, to conclude on a higher cosmic intellect. People propose the existence of gravitons, and that's pretty wild, but it's becoming more and more possible it's true.

I think you've just missed the point somewhere. People thought the idea of atoms, bacteria, all kinds of things, were asinine because they could not observe them, but the wild ideas panned out to be true. It's exactly the same thing with religion, a hypothesis to explain how and why things happen in the natural world. So call it what it is, don't shut it down like a wanna-be intellectual.

A "real scientist" is sort of agnostic because anything considered "true" is never 100% true, but 99.999 etc. There is always room for the possibility what "we observe" is a reflection of "what's real" or a product of "what we think we see". You must, at some point however, work within these boundaries to move to the next step, so we hop up hoping we don't fall through on that .00001%, and it's a decent bet, but it's never the end-all, be-all. You're just totally misunderstanding what science really "is".

Meme scientists and capitalists made people believe there is a choice between religion and science which is categorically untrue. There are still lots of scientists doing cutting edge sciencey stuff who are catholics.

Well, it's not just "how and why things happen in the natural world", but also "how and why things happen in a metaphysical existence". The idea of souls, afterlife, heaven, hell, these are all extensions which may be constructs in the first place, and one idea being possibly true, as a unified cosmic intellect, doesn't necessarily promote their existence. That becomes a matter of the flavor of your preferred belief or faith.

Of course there is an important conflict between science and religion. It concerns the different approaches to thinking.

With science, you are trained not to accept other people's authority, but instead are encouraged to try things out for yourself and see if you get the same results as others.

With religion, you are expected to accept truths proclaimed by authority "from revelation", and are explicitly enjoined not to check it out for yourself. Many times in the Bible, it describes faith (i.e not checking) as being good of an for itself, for instance Hebrews 11:1-2 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

That's like saying there's some conflict in practical application between a paradigm and an algorithm. What are your ends? Do you want to live a happy life, put food on a table and a roof over heads? It doesn't matter if you're pragmatic or computational, you'll get sometimes a favorable or unfavorable result in either method.

Ok, you choose algorithmic, because you feel the details are important, and quite honestly, if I'm going to Mars, I'm going to listen to you. But I'm not going to Mars, I'm going to live my life as a confident, decent person and the way that works doesn't require a protractor and a calculator.

>With science, you are trained not to accept other people's authority, but instead are encouraged to try things out for yourself and see if you get the same results as others.

When was the last time you personally tested how many calories were in an egg?

>People thought the idea of atoms, bacteria, all kinds of things, were asinine because they could not observe them, but the wild ideas panned out to be true. It's exactly the same thing with religion, a hypothesis to explain how and why things happen in the natural world
but all of those things are observable. sure not with the naked eye, but we can see atoms and bacteria with microscopes. besides that all of these were falsifiable. sure falsifiability isn't the end all be all, but ideas that have predictive power are simply more useful. there is no reason is no reason to dispute them when they can get the job done fairly accurately everytime. when there is no ground for the argument for God to stand on, unfalsifiable and with its logical arguments disputed, there is no reason not to disregard it

The religious mindset includes the tenet that on some things are definitely completely true and will always be true(Dogma).

This is the heart of the conflict, religion can never be wrong.

Apostasy was a capital crime in Christendom until the enlightenment, and is still one in some Islamic codes. A mindset based on reason could never ever come to the same conclusion, because the religious belief is based onthings we do not fully understand.

>but all of those things are observable

with the right tools, and I can argue we don't have the right tools at this time to fully conclude the existence of a cosmic intelligence.