Muh celestial order

Send them to heaven early?

You can't threaten a Christian with heaven.

Yeah, everybody wins when you crucify Christfags.

based nips

Except you lose, because your destination is hell.

But hell isn't actually real and you get to live in a world untainted by Christianity which is a great victory.

Hell is real and you're going there when you die.

>Hell is real
*in my mind

>Hell is not real
*in my mind

You're right.

And it's not real outside my mind too.

Both wrong.

The answer is buddhism.

>it's not real
*in my mind

>Repeating your own post, which was copied from me, which was already hackneyed as fuck to begin with.

Not banter.

>"It's not reaaaaaal"
>He shouts in agony, as he's getting burnt to a skeleton

Who are you quoting?

How sad do you have to be to believe childish shit like that?

But, lad, I'm alright.

>Nothing exploded
>Soup became alive!
>My grandpa was a monkey

How sad do you have to be to believe childish shit like that?

>This level of scientific knowledge
Does baptism water kill braincells or something?

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

You have to be mentally ill to believe you came from a rock by pure chance (mathematical impossibility).

>newgeology

What, pray tell, is your explanation for none of these theories standing up in actual academic environments?

creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

That answers your question.

>newgeology.us
Hmm, I wonder what rigorous academic investigation is in there, Cletus.

>creation.com

Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.

Not an argument.

No, because I aint clicking that link. Make the argument yourself.

Are you seriously capable only of recycling the arguments of others? Parroting things on command as others taught you?

I fully agree.

Just above having no sense of irony.

I assure you, he hasn't read the link either.

>expects me to write a book worth of materials on a Mongolian cave painting board
>when sources exist that already do just that

Now we both know the actual reason why you're so afraid of science - because science destroys your delusional worldview of monkey mythologies.

Instead of blindly believing what others tell you to believe, try being a critical thinker and do research. It's called being rational, you might wanna try it ;)

I have. It answers the whole "hurr y dont creationists go thru peer review" argument, which is what that user was hinting at.

So, do you delight in the knowledge that you do nothing but make this place worse?

Let me take a guess: it's a Satanic conspiracy against the Bible.

1. Changes subject when getting BTFO
2. Ad hominem

You're embarrassing yourself.

Wrong.

not him but you're a fucking idiot.

that article uses science and real arguments, doesnt bring up the bible at all.

you atheists are real cunts.

I guess it could be considered autistic. Anyone over a certain threshold of wealth total and security isn't going to give a flying ahit beyond use as a personnel doctrine, some elements of it.

>Was it singlehandedly responsible for stifling China's innovation and development and causing it to fall behind everyone else?
Considering that many of China's inventors and engineers came from Confucian Shuyuan (Academies)?

No.

Pic related. The locking mechanisms which made the Grand Canal more efficient was invented by cunts from a Confucian academy.

This may be somewhat convincing if I hadn't heard so many variations of it to explain why a particular part of the academic community doesn't like someones hot radical ideas.

>you atheists are real cunts.

Maybe. But at least I don't do nothing but vociferously shitpost and ruin an entire board.

But that's beside the point. Regardless of what arguments he makes, the fact remains that it is just window dressing for a foregone conclusion drawn in supernatural, non-scientific reasoning. You do literally believe that there's a satanic conspiracy holding your beliefs down, and stretch whatever minimal data you can scrape together to support that conclusion.

Why did evolution gain traction in the first place?

>"I have 0 idea of Asian history and do not know that Christianity was successfully peddled to China by Jesuits via Jesuits studying Confucianism and showing how there is no contradiction between Confucian and Christian morality"- the post

>you atheists are real cunts.
And proud of it.

I used to think that too, but Veeky Forums has opened my eyes to the Christfag menace and now I see that new-atheism was a bullwark against these retards. So I will be as smug and edgy as I want.

Fuck the bible, all hail Richard Dawkins.

>what was wrong with legalism
On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria was written for and from the West, but ultimately applies to the legalists' obsession with unreasonable cruel torture, trigger-happy death penalty, and overall fantasies that only the harshest laws could work, too.

>isn't the idea of having objective laws that all are subject to the basis of Western civilization too?
The West developed ideas of rights that go beyond the one of being all equal before the law.

Which isn't that bad of a thing, because I've yet to see that one put in practice, West or East.

no

It's painfully obvious how little you know of Creationist materials or arguments, you're just a brainwashed atheist regurgitating the same shit he's been force fed.

I have studied both evolutionism and creationism, and I follow where the evidence leads me to. The creationist (biblical) worldview makes more sense than the evolutionist (materialist) worldview does.

You on the other hand, only know (little) about evolution and know nothing about creation. All you can do is straw man and get your feelings hurt when someone on the internet does not believe in lies as you do.

>I have studied both evolutionism and creationism, and I follow where the evidence leads me to. The creationist (biblical) worldview makes more sense than the evolutionist (materialist) worldview does.

So, where's your degree?

>being all equal before the law.
Does that mean being euel like in front of the law or does it mean equal prior to the law, as in rights are applicable before and above the law, that they supercede the law?

Where's yours?

ad populum logical fallacy

I don't have one. But I also don't endless shitpost about how my hot opinions that just so happen to mesh with the primary religion of my country that I was likely raised up to believe are superior to academic consensus, while conveniently not having an explanation for this competing theory gaining traction in the first place.

You're the one who needs credentials here.

>Skydaddy made the world in seven days, made humans special, then decided to focus on a small group of irrelevant desert Jews for the rest of history.

>This makes sense.

Something being fallacious doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it unsuitable for formal debate.

Also, wrong fallacy, dickcheese.

>This makes sense.

See? I can strawman too.

Except that isn't a strawman. That's exactly the story of the Bible.

lol you fucking retard, evolution makes less sense than the bible

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack."

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

It's a strawman, and it's obvious you're not interested in an actual discussion on the matter. You're just shitposting.

There's no misrepresentation in that post. That is exactly the fucking story of the Bible, you goddamn idiot.

Did god not make the world in 6 days?
Are humans not special by his design?
Did he not spend the rest of history focusing on a small group of desert Jews?

So how exactly is it a strawman? Where is the misrepresentation?

Yes, I do have difficulty believing that because I have difficulty believing in god to begin with.

And why is that?

Discussing God belongs in the philosophical/theological realm.

Repeated debates has shown that a belief in an ultimate Creator is more reasonable and logical than believing you're just a random accident (which is impossible).

In the West there are human rights courts, which are supra-national entities that a citizen, who claims to be suffering some kind of human rights abuse by the legal system of his or her country, can appeal to.

In Legalism NO ONE is above the law of the land, NOTHING is above the law of the land.

A Legalist state would NEVER allow anything above its own particular legal code to interfere.

>And why is that?
Because I don't think we have sufficient knowledge about the origins of the universe to make a judgement, de facto making me an atheist. I've found all the arguments for god that I've encountered to be unconvincing.

>Repeated debates has shown that a belief in an ultimate Creator is more reasonable and logical than believing you're just a random accident (which is impossible).
Not in my experience. But do go on, I'm interested in hearing why being a cosmic accident is impossible.

>I don't think we have sufficient knowledge about the origins of the universe to make a judgement, de facto making me an atheist.

That makes you an agnostic

Abiogenesis is pretty cool. You should stop saying "we came from a rock" like that make abiogenisis impossible. It sure as fuck doesn't make your absurd 6 day story true.

exploringorigins.org/

It does and it doesn't, atheism just means a lack of belief in god and by virtue of that everyone from agnostics to anti-theists are atheists by definition whether or not they acknowledge it.

I do personally object to being called an "agnostic" because I think people that make a point of calling themselves that tend to be pussy-footing faggots that are afraid of offending religious people.

both confirmed for NEETS

Single cell Organisms didn't come from a rock, they came from DNA and RNA which is are series of amino acids which are proteins and proteins are from basic chemicals that were present on the earth.

Dude, you have to be trolling. No guy that has 'read both sides of the argument' draws the conclusion that creationism makes more sense.
Then to say you've read both sides of the argument and then show such little understanding, either means you're mentally retarded or lying.

Theism = Belief in God
Agnosticism = I don't know
Atheism = Don't believe in God

You're an agnostic.

>That makes you an agnostic
He's an Agnostic Atheist

Most reasonable people who have faith are Agnostic Theists (they don't know for certain that god exists but have faith that he does)

Gnostics (who claim to know for a fact one way or the other) are almost always cancerous fedora-tippers or bible-thumping evangelicals

But I don't believe in god.

>hurr durr god gave a special book to one tiny group of humans that told them everything perfectly
>hurr durr the world is 4000 years old hurr a ball of magma could have cooled that fast
>hurr durr every human born before this book or in societies where they didn't read this book for milennia is going to hell
>hurr durr magic powers

Agnostic means that you believe god is unknowable. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

>Agnostic means that you believe god is unknowable.
ITT: we make up meanings.

Why are modern American Christians so hellbent on defending their lives from Muslim?

Are they afraid of something?

>sufferring eternally in order to send true believers into eternal paradise
Sounds pretty noble to me.

I'm not entirely sure you even own taht bnook, please post a picture of your copy with timestamp.

Its like the abortion paradox.

If killing babies sends then all the heaven instead of letting them grow up to be adults and possibly go to hell, then why not abort all babies and ask for forgiveness when you are the last man on earth.

Once upon a time there was a city called Constantinople. Now it's called Istanbul. And that's why.

You have two oceans and two continents seperating you from the middle east.

But why were early Christians all about matyrdom?

And now modern Christians are afraid of anything that threatens their livelihood like taxes much less their lives which they will kill others to defend.

What you mean?

I'm pretty sure Jesus kicked all those Romans in the ass when they tried to crucify him.

The early Christians believed the end times were coming and had nothing to lose.

Why is that westerner helping them

If you mean the monk looking dude in the middle he's not helping them, he's about to get crucified. Hence why there's an unraised cross under him.

>Christfag ruined another thread yet again.

The fact that the Japanese only got the idea of crucifixion from Christians is hilarious.

>Hello, would you like to read the bible.
>Hmm, this has some good ideas in it. I know just who to try them out on.

Confucianism is Ok. Strong morality. Strong family value. Strong Meritocracy. The only problem about it is it need a good sense of obedience, conservatism and loyalty from their follower. Don't change what already working they said. It's suitable for China, Japan and German but probably not suitable for anyone else. Taoism was especially invented to defy this stifling philosophy.

Sweet irony.

>The fact that the Japanese only got the idea of crucifixion from Christians is hilarious.
Nope. Before mass christianization, Japs already crucified people.

Its based off variations of the Chinese punishment of "Death of a Thousand Cuts" where during the T'ang and Song dynasties, they nailed the poor sod to a wooden "donkey" which is like an elevated bench with a cross-frame backrest and cut the victim to pieces.

Except nips were merciful and just speared the guy, with the cross serving as a display frame for the body to rot on.

That's not true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Japan

>mfw I literally posted an example of pre-Christian crucifixion.
Mkay.

>I said it so it's true.

Sure thing, buddy.