Atheism is destroying black minds.

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1) Who said you were religious since you were created? We evolved from microbes, and I've never seen an amoeba in church.

Bring a microscope and a Q-tip next time you go.​

2) If you actually read the bible/qu'ran you'll see that they both preach an insane amount of intolerance toward women.

Which is why it makes no sense for Paul to actually send women out to preach the 'Gospel', for Jesus to announce his actual identity first to a female, for Jesus' first appearance after being 'resurrected' to be before a female, for some of the apostles (not the 12) to be female, etc. If they were so intolerant, why would they even mention females in positions of authority? I guess you're measuring their treatment towards women by present-day standards instead of against those of the surrounding civilizations at the time the text was written. By our standards, they were barbaric. By the standards of their time, they were progressive.
​

As well as just general terrible ideas such as, "stoning homosexuals," "letting a father sell his daughter into slavery," a lot of these passages were quoted by white southerners to keep blacks down. If you read The Autobiography of Malcolm X, even he throws stones at religious institutions.

Well, as I pointed out to another poster, 'slavery' at that time didn't mean what it came to mean 1500 years later. The laws regarding property and family often intersected but with safeguards that Southern slave owners paid absolutely no heed to.

I mean, if you know the law states you can't drive over 55 MPH, but you go 70 MPH 'cause fukk laws, are you really following the law?
​

3) Religious folks are constantly updating their beliefs to try and one-up science.

God is just a placeholder for whatever thing science can't prove.

Nice strawman and equally nonsensical since there is no coherent definition of 'G-d'. Just how, exactly, does 'religion' even say anything since it's not actually a being capable of speech?
​

Who would the real demon be? Some reasonable guy trying to further humanity's knowledge, or the guy telling you those people are sinners and that he can raise the dead and go to heaven on a horse?

What's a 'demon' and what's 'heaven'?​

Also, if you're religious and calling white people demons, you're a bad person and going to Hell.

What's 'Hell'?

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

none of this will be refuted

......think again.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I live in the south, churches every 30 yards..... shyts embarrassing that many people are told what to think.

Well, that certainly shows you don't actually go INSIDE churches. Why be embarrassed about places you don't frequent so don't know what they're being told?

I mean, there are gay bars around me but since I don't patronize them and don't care what's going on inside them, they have no effect on me whatsoever.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Don't question G-d.

How do you question something when you don't know what it is?

Does it have ears? Lips? Can it beat-box?

Inquiring minds want to know...........​

 

[GPBear]

Bring a microscope and a Q-tip next time you go.​

Which is why it makes no sense for Paul to actually send women out to preach the 'Gospel', for Jesus to announce his actual identity first to a female, for Jesus' first appearance after being 'resurrected' to be before a female, for some of the apostles (not the 12) to be female, etc. If they were so intolerant, why would they even mention females in positions of authority? I guess you're measuring their treatment towards women by present-day standards instead of against those of the surrounding civilizations at the time the text was written. By our standards, they were barbaric. By the standards of their time, they were progressive.
​

Well, as I pointed out to another poster, 'slavery' at that time didn't mean what it came to mean 1500 years later. The laws regarding property and family often intersected but with safeguards that Southern slave owners paid absolutely no heed to.

I mean, if you know the law states you can't drive over 55 MPH, but you go 70 MPH 'cause fukk laws, are you really following the law?
​

Nice strawman and equally nonsensical since there is no coherent definition of 'G-d'. Just how, exactly, does 'religion' even say anything since it's not actually a being capable of speech?
​

What's a 'demon' and what's 'heaven'?​

What's 'Hell'?

​

I'll bring a microscope, Q-tip, a Phife dawg, an Ali Shaheed Muhammad, AND a Jarobi!

Bringing up logical fallacies...you're religious. Atheists invented logical fallacies. Atheists invented logic. Bertrand Rusell proved 1 + 1 = 2, so you could turn around and call him illogical. Great.

I don't need you bringing up strawman arguments trying to act like my jokes are serious. We can talk like men, or we can beat around the bush. If you said "What's hell?" in a barbershop, someone would probably slap the shyt out of you. Hell in English has a 100% definition, you're just crazy. Hell for Christians. Naraka for Buddhists. Hades or better yet, Tartarus for Ancient Greeks. I could go on for days.

Wow. You compared slavery to driving laws. Those aren't comparable things, first of all. Slavery in any form is bad, 1500 years ago it was bad because it gave societies in the future the ability to justify having slavery. Look at Ancient Sparta, 10,000 Spartans ruled over 500,000 turks or something. This was big upped by that german guy with a fukked up mustache. These foundational seeds grew rotten trees, you sound like a Soviet era Communist, they would say "It's not that we're failing, it's that we're not being Communist enough. We're not being pure enough" maybe the problem isn't people being mislead from their religions, maybe the problem is in the core of the religion itself. You're right, slaves back then weren't the same. Some slaves back then had it worse, like in Ancient China where some were castrated and turned into Eunuchs for the royal court or in Mesoamerica, where some were thrown into Volcanoes or left to freeze on a mountaintop to appease harvest gods.

Secondly. You're just ridiculous. "What is heaven" the place Mohammed claimed to go to on a horse, you don't get to just say "What is heaven" when it's implicit within the statement you're addressing. There's a singular, definitive story of Mohammed going to 'Heaven' on a horse. So that would be the definition of Heaven you address, not just ask 'What's heaven' and have me literally spell it out for you like a child. It's like you're purposefully not reading anything in context. "What's a demon what's heaven" not reading things in context, these are questions a 3rd grader would ask and you expect me to validate them with a mature response.Or are you just being rhetorical? Which I would like to again point out, rhetoric, invented by ancient Greek philosophers, non-religious folks.

In regards to the first, you don't get to do that. The reason you know about Jesus is the bible. The reason you know the bible is because of the religious institutions that organized canon in the 3rd centuries (or whenever). Yes, in Ancient Churches women were often given leadership roles. That doesn't make up for the thousands of years of horrendous treatment they have suffered since. In addition, Paul was a high ranking member of society and a member of the third-front of ancient middle east political parties, a violent party that went against the conservatives and liberals at the time. Why should I respect someone who today would absolutely be labeled a terrorist?

How is atheism ruining anyone's mind when I'm the one using paragraphs...

You notice how I read every sentence you write and respond to it with more than 3 word answers, try doing that. What you're doing, is trying to bog down the discussion by having me waste my energy trying to explain simple things to you. Please stop doing that.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'll bring a microscope, Q-tip, a Phife dawg, an Ali Shaheed Muhammad, AND a Jarobi!

Bust a nut inside your eye and show you where I cum from...........​

Bringing up logical fallacies...you're religious.

Nope. Just not ANTI-religious.​

Atheists invented logical fallacies. Atheists invented logic. Bertrand Rusell proved 1 + 1 = 2, so you could turn around and call him illogical. Great.

Nah, although 'Our Knowledge of the External World......' was pretty decent.​

I don't need you bringing up strawman arguments trying to act like my jokes are serious.

Well, seeing as you already did in your second sentence, it's a tad late for that.​

We can talk like men, or we can beat around the bush. If you said "What's hell?" in a barbershop, someone would probably slap the shyt out of you.

I haven't been to a barber shop in 13 years. Dreadlocks, holmes.​

Hell in English has a 100% definition, you're just crazy. Hell for Christians. Naraka for Buddhists. Hades or better yet, Tartarus for Ancient Greeks. I could go on for days.

None of that tells me what YOU mean by 'Hell'.​

Wow. You compared slavery to driving laws. Those aren't comparable things, first of all. Slavery in any form is bad,

ORLY? Then I guess adoption is 'bad' according to you since that was one of the ways they used it back then. Marriage also.​

1500 years ago it was bad because it gave societies in the future the ability to justify having slavery.

Including the United States of America according to the Constitution............​

Look at Ancient Sparta,

No.​

Secondly. You're just ridiculous.

Ad hominem. That's strike two.​

"What is heaven" the place Mohammed claimed to go to on a horse, you don't get to just say "What is heaven" when it's implicit within the statement you're addressing.

Well, since I don't know what 'heaven' is you'll need to define it as it isn't axiomatic.​

There's a singular, definitive story of Mohammed going to 'Heaven' on a horse. So that would be the definition of Heaven you address,

No, that wouldn't since Mohammed didn't claim to raise anyone from the dead. You mixed-up two stories.​

not just ask 'What's heaven' and have me literally spell it out for you like a child. It's like you're purposefully not reading anything in context.

No, I'm a theological noncognitivist. Those terms are incoherent to me without definition regardless of context. If I said 'I'm going to Zarlax' to you without telling you what/where it was, it'd be the same thing.​

"What's a demon what's heaven" not reading things in context, these are questions a 3rd grader would ask and you expect me to validate them with a mature response.Or are you just being rhetorical? Which I would like to again point out, rhetoric, invented by ancient Greek philosophers, non-religious folks.

No, not being rhetorical. This is how theological noncognitivism works. Just throwing out theological terminology like Scooby Snacks to me engenders these types of exchanges.
​

In regards to the first, you don't get to do that.

I'll do whatever I want.​

The reason you know about Jesus is the bible. The reason you know the bible is because of the religious institutions that organized canon in the 3rd centuries (or whenever). Yes, in Ancient Churches women were often given leadership roles. That doesn't make up for the thousands of years of horrendous treatment they have suffered since.

'Horrendous' is a subjective term.​

In addition, Paul was a high ranking member of society and a member of the third-front of ancient middle east political parties, a violent party that went against the conservatives and liberals at the time. Why should I respect someone who today would absolutely be labeled a terrorist?

Who said you had to respect him?​

How is atheism ruining anyone's mind when I'm the one using paragraphs...

What are these you nikkas have?​

You notice how I read every sentence you write and respond to it with more than 3 word answers, try doing that.

When/If I feel like it.
​

What you're doing, is trying to bog down the discussion by having me waste my energy trying to explain simple things to you. Please stop doing that.

If they were simple, you'd have explained them already instead of wasting MY time writing this gigantic, rambling, wall-of-text post of nothing of importance.

Strike Three.

​

 

[GPBear]

 

[GPBear]

I feel the same way I do as when I had to debate Ayn Rand Objectivists back in the Bush era; you clog up any rational discussion with your pedantry. "Not anti-religious" is as close to a double negative as you can get, it's just skirting around things so specific to your belief system that you expect laymen to understand. You just break all rules of conversation, and expect me to meet you on your ideological territory. Asking an Atheist to define Heaven, I don't believe in Heaven, so it's like me describing Zarlax. I'm not just gonna bend to your needs because you think "Heaven" is undefined. "What's my definition of Heaven/Hell" that's my entire existence, is that there isn't one.

Hades, Hell, I gave the list so you could find the common denominator of "Where bad people go when they die according to the religious" because if I have to sit here and argue over why Heaven according to Christian thinkers in the year 44 is wrong or why Buddhist Naraka circa 2010 is wrong, then nothing will ever get done. Why does it matter if I respect Paul? Because you claimed he gives women some sort of equality through being gospel messengers, if I don't respect him, I'm just gonna believe he's a lying political type trying to get his way by coaxing women onto his side or something.

This isn't a court of law, I don't need to be axiomatic or logically infallible because you "don't know what "heaven" is" yes you do. English, motherfukker, do you speak it? It isn't the middle ages, arguing the definition of Heaven is something Thomas Aquinas or Boethius would do.

Sir Roger Penrose in 2010 discovered anomalies in the WMAP which can only be explained if there was a universe before the big bang. Therefore, my definition of 'god' is the totality of every universe before and after this one combined. There isn't a heaven within that realm, and in an infinite amount of years, the universes will reshuffle until we seemingly end up back here having this argument again, so when you die, you just start from the beginning. So in my belief system, sitting here and arguing over the definition of Heaven/Hell is a waste of my time. Not that it isn't totally necessary, or that I don't see the point, it's just that I think it's a waste of time.

 

[Detroit Wave]

lol in the old testament god was intervening like a motherfukker but when the trans alantic slave trade popped off he was no where to be seen

how yall worship the same imaginary sky father who signed off on slavery?

 

[AntiVenom]

Bull fukking shyt. Athiesim isnt destroying black minds. If anything its empowering black minds.

Id rather black people realize that no god is coming down from heaven to rescue. Maybe if more of us understand that we'll start trying to make ourselves capable of saving ourselves.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

A rambling bunch of nonsense.

Man, shut your boring-ass up.

When you learn how to address someone's actual position without being a non-interesting, self-absorbed, corny, wannabe 'White man' with a stick up his ass, wake me up.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Bull fukking shyt. Athiesim isnt destroying black minds. If anything its empowering black minds.

ORLY?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/30/atheists-and-agnostics-have-a-shocking-race-problem/
​

According to the extensive survey from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, both atheism and agnosticism are subject to a lack of ethnic diversity that would impress any Ku Klux Klan grand dragon.

Just three percent of America’s atheists and agnostics are black. A mere six percent are Hispanic. And only four percent of the nation’s unbelievers are Asian.

Fully 82 percent of the atheists and agnostics in the United States are white.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap​

At some point one has to admit that there is a pattern here. And just to pile on a bit, the estimable Craig Keener, in his huge review of claims of miracles in a wide variety of cultures, concludes that routine rejection of the possibility of the supernatural represents an impulse that is deeply Eurocentric.

So, in order to 'empower Black minds', 'Black' people should think like 'White' Americans and Europeans.

KEEP SUKKING THE WHITE MAN'S DIKK, BREHS!!!!!!!

​

 

[p00rky]

Blacks have been fukked since day one and for some reason so many of us believe in a GOD that doesn't help. Hell look at Africa.

 

[GPBear]

Man, shut your boring-ass up.

When you learn how to address someone's actual position without being a non-interesting, self-absorbed, corny, wannabe 'White man' with a stick up his ass, wake me up.

​

Hey, go fukk yourself.


"Strawman argument, strawman argument, logical fallacy" then when I tell you "you can't do that" "I do whatever I want"

I guess being a "theological non-cognitivist" means you get double standards and shyt.

Don't tell me how to address people when you're the one bullrushing a forum with garbage. You argue like my ex-girlfriend, like you just read something on wikipedia, and now you force it into your every conversation so everyone around you looks stupid.

 

[Nephilim_BC]

lol in the old testament god was intervening like a motherfukker but when the trans alantic slave trade popped off he was no where to be seen

how yall worship the same imaginary sky father who signed off on slavery?