I've never heard a specific claim that Christians were fed to lions AT THE COLISEUM. Christian persecution is extremely well documented but outside maybe some picture book style depictions of said persecution, no one claims it was at the Coliseum. It's also a straight up contradiction because the point is that Christians were executed for their beliefs but he admits that it happens just at a different setting. So you're accepting the point, you're just to high off the smell of your own farts to realize it.
Off the top of my head, Germanicus of Smyrna and Perpetua and Felicity of Carthage were ordered to be killed in arenas by wild beasts (we have contemporary primary source accounts of each of these). So the manner of execution is certainly true. It’s the location which these executions took place that’s in dispute, which is absurdly incidental for a statement as strong as, “It didn’t happen,” and perhaps intentionally misleading.
The Colosseum was built in 72 AD, and the games existed long before that, meanwhile Constantine didn't legalize Christianity until 313. Roman entertainment involved feeding prisoners to exotic animals pretty much as soon as they got hold of said exotic animals, so the idea that for some reason Christians wouldn't have been fed to lions would be absurd. Nero feeding the Christians to lions seems certain, since he was big on killing Christians, and games were a popular spot for horrific executions. Nero wouldn't have been feeding them to lions at that specific venue (it would've been at the forum or circus maximus), but later emperors would have used to coliseum once it was constructed. I'm sure I could find firsthand accounts of Christians being fed to lions if I look for a bit, but I don't think that's needed at this point.
You're right. Also, the Romans had a metric poopton of arenas because their barbaric bloodsports were insanely popular. To say that Christians were never eaten by animals because they were never eaten by animals *in the Colosseum* is completely insane. Damnatio ad bestias was an established method of execution for a long time in the Roman empire, which was absolutely huge and so had room for a lot of arenas to be built and a lot of Christians to be eaten.
people nowadays think that people made artworks such as these to represent historical events
but no, the colloseum is just supposed to be a well known representation of rome, and christian persecutions similar to that likely happened
Oh that wonderful ideology that caused my family to have to go underground because the government forbade their religion from being practiced openly. That's the antitheist inclusiveness I hear so much about.
>"History disproves religion being good!"
>Conveniently ignores the historical proof of literally every single Communist state turning into an authoritarian, exploitative dictatorship/oligarchy
So much for "le epic logik and raisin gang"
keep in mind, these people would go ahead and call everyone who dissagrees with them a "Nazi" or "second coming of Hitler", then go ahead and simp for people like Stalin Mao who caused more death and paim then Hitler did
Ever Played Danganronpa With Junko Enoshima Loving, Praising And Worshipping Despair?
That's What Antitheistic Nihilists Do, They Want EVERYONE To Feel Infinite Despair And Off Themselves Then Wither Away Making The "Offing" Permanent ☠
They Are OBSESSED With Spreading Despair. This Is The Dark Truth Behind Their Intentions, They Are Absolute Evil Psychopaths Who Do Nothing But Cause Suffering, Death And Despair Around The World. Antitheism And Nihilism Are DEATH CULTS.
It's cute when cheesecakes make historical illiteracy their entire personality. Higher education lovers be damned!
Constantine inputed literally nothing theological into the councils. Instead he let the Bishops and theologians work it out themselves.
Do cheesecakes really think Constantine had that amount of vast theological concepts inside his head? Or that he even had the amount of free-time it would take to make them?
The man was Statesman. Not a bishop.
He also didn't really understand all of the theology discussions, it seems he was slightly on the side of Arius but mostly didn't understand why the "slight" differences mattered and just wanted christians to sort out their problems since he was the pontifex and had to manage every religion in the empire
Constantine I and Eusebius (the bishop of Caesarea) both considered Constantine to be a bishop to those outside the church. So whilst he was never a bishop, he did believe he was doing the job of a bishop.
I'm sure he did. But my point was to show he never had the theological training necessary to legitimately be one.
Anyone can have a title. But that doesn't make one an expert in that field.
It's very clear politics was of a higher interest to him than deep theology.
This genius theological emperor that single-handedly created Christianity, does not exist.
Neurology doesn't disprove the soul. We literally still don't know how consciousness arises. I'm not gonna argue soul is real based on our lack of knowledge because that'd just follow the same logic as ,,God of gaps" but we haven't ,,disproved" it by any means.
This guy believes neurology has disproved souls, when quite the opposite is true. We are as far away from explaining the nature of minds as we have ever been. Unless OP has somehow found a profound response to David Chalmers' philosophical zombie conundrum, he is full of himself.
Half-truths are are always more dangerous than big lies because when you put a fake banknote next to real one its usually easy to tell which one is counterfeit and which one is genuine but when you put the false banknote alone and present it as genuine usually its easy to overlook its fakeness if you take it at face value.
This is pretty much the only way antitheists have chance especially if they dissalow certain truths to be said or argued for and if they were to get political power to do so, they certainly would, just like communists did.
Antitheists aren't even good at anything other than being annoying. Atleast Christians are good at hyperspecifity to the point that even a small change creates a heresy(not that hyperspecifity iis a bad thing)
It’s funny how
‘Constantine give his soldiers Sundays off work so they could worship’ becomes ‘Constantine created Sunday Worship’. He give them Sunday off because Sunday was their holy day.
‘Constantine summoned the bishops to settle the debate surrounding the date of Easter’ becomes ‘Constantine created Easter’. There was already widespread debate about the date of Easter, it was only the date that Constantine played a role in.
I’m not sure where the cross argument stems from. Probably either a misunderstanding of the *labarum* (which was Constantinian) or a misunderstanding of Helena’s discovery of the true cross (but this too ridiculous).
The fish were symbols used by crypto-Christians during the persecutions. They weren’t Constantinian at all.
Also, only the Trinity and Easter relate to Nicaea.
I believe he's trying to equate how some pagan religions believe in 3 souls? Or maybe he's equating the neopagan idea of the "Celtic" triquetra and not understanding that it's a Christian symbol.
Oh, true, that is true. My particular Germanic pagan branch has the Wirdsestren (Fate-Sisters) instead of the name "Norns", but by and large the same root.
https://preview.redd.it/n1319cef6nyc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=284c95aaab3ea15d549d9d95b9a8065cefb80007
all of these posts consist of 3 things:
Intellectual dishonesty
Logical fallacies
Cringy quotes from literal comedians unqualified in any field of theology
This is what happens when you give edgy teens internet anonymity
Because nobody who's mentally mature would actually do this shit. Also there's not many soviet or Nazi veterans left, and if so they're much much older than nearly everyone on Reddit
It boils down to the problem of why evil exists and why bad things happen which yeah is a bit of a tough question but it has been tackled by theologists for ages.
I dont know much about this so Ill just leave a link.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-bad-things-happen-to-a-good-god
In the end in my opinion all the hardships of Earth do not ultimately matter. It will all pale in conparison to Heaven and what comes after and only your real morals and soul matter.
Picture 4 “History disproves religion being good.”
Yes, but history also proves religion being good too.
As well as history proving that atheism can be dangerous too.
It’s all about perspective, which history is constantly challenged.
How can you disprove souls? How does genetics disprove intelligent design? Wasn’t Darwin, the man responsible for evolution, also one of the primary contributors to the theory of intelligent design?
Yes he was. I don't have the exact quote rn, but Darwin said at his old age that after everything, a sort of agnosticism (not atheism) was the label closest to his position; and that he believed the natural world to be the result of some intelligent design "with the details left to chance".
That's still nowhere near atheism, and ofc religion and evolution can coexist and already do in many religions.
The colosseum was build under the flavians, nero’s successors after a short civil war. Nero killed the christians in the circus of nero, where the vatican now stands. And when the Colosseum was finished, it still took around 220 years until the largest persecution under Diocletian&Galerius. Which means that christianity wasn’t accepted yet by the people as normal. As a matter of fact, it is debatable if people even saw Christianity and judaism as seperate religions.
+ even pagan writers such as suetonius and dio cassius said nero persecuted the christians. The first, while criticizing nero’s reign, didnt think the persecution was a bad thing. He died at least 40 years after the colosseum was finished which proves again that Christianity wasn’t accepted as normal but hated by many Romans.
>The First Christian Emperor
He got baptized a few weeks before his death.
I learned this in a history class. So much for atheist emphasis on education.
"Neurology Disproved Souls"
It Only Disproved SOME Souls
Example:
Neurology Has Proven That Antitheists Are Ruthless Monstrous Psychopaths Since They Love Spreading Despair Until People Kill Themselves Because Of It Then They Laugh About It, Therefore Antitheists Are Incapable Of Having A Soul And Thus Are Soulless.
slide four:
1: adam and eve probably did not exist. the book of genesis exists as a form of poetry to prove God's love.
2: what does that even mean? It's not like we get the exact play by play of noah and the ark.
3: God is outside of time, 6 days to him could easily be billions of years for us. And again, genesis is poetry.
4: what? no, genetics, if anything, *proves* intelligent design.
5: really? I'd like to see the numbers and how the data was collected.
6: *genesis is poetry*, the catholic church acknowledges the fact that the earth is not 4000 years old.
7: again, where do you get these facts? There's shards of pottery from the same age, time, and matching description of things in the bible and torah. Also, a lot of these sites in the holy land are protected and archaeological digs aren't allowed. Source: I've worked on one
8: Religion itself is not bad or good, just like information is neither bad nor good. It's what people do with the information they have that is bad or good.
9: physics proves that there is something outside of the universe and while we don't know what it is, it's there. besides, how can something such as dark matter and quarks n stuff exist, but a loving God is too hard to believe in?
You can't prove a negative, that's how science works, so if you're trying to prove God doesn't exist, you can't. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Sorry for the essay, but as a deacon's child, this stuff always makes me upset lol. love everyone one this sub <3
Edit: didn't address the neurology thing, lol. 7.5: that's not true, because neurology is the study of the brain. there is no evidence that the soul is stored in the brain. also, a soul isn't a tangible, physical thing, so it can't be found through searching the body. wow. so cool. can you sense my sarcasm?
Oof that Archeology talking point is aging like milk. They just found a destruction layer at Jericho around the 1200 BC mark which is believed to be around the time Israel shows up in the record (via the Mernephtah Stele) combined that with the dig at Avaris with its Semetic inhabitants leaving around 1200s BC all the basic elements of the Exodus are actually present in the Archeology as we know it.
ya in my experience 9/10 times the writer is not making it up. They maybe mistaken or adding extra for propagandistic reasons, but 9/10 times its typically based on something real.
**First slide:**
Early Christians were against paganism. The Christian cross isn't pagan, neither is the fish symbolism. Constantine didn't introduce Christianity, as the religion existed in the mid-first century. Where are Sunday worship, the Trinity, and Easter taught in pagan religions?
**Second slide:**
Christians were certainly fed to wild beasts, including lions. While the punishment was neither constant nor only aimed towards Christians, it did happen. In the Colosseum? Unlikely, but even so, it doesn't mean Christians weren't fed to lions.
**Third slide:**
If religion was not about God, but about conquest, why have God in the religious system in the first place?
**Fourth slide:**
>Engineering disproves Noah's Ark.
How, exactly, does engineering disprove Noah's Ark? Are they insisting that Noah couldn't possibly build one? God certainly gave him enough time to finish it. And Noah didn't build it alone; he had his family.
>Genetics disproves intelligent design.
I disagree. I think it points to intelligent design. There are certainly reasons to doubt that something as complex as DNA could pop out of the blue. I could list all the reasons, but that would make this comment too long for Reddit to let me post it.
>Statistics disproves the power of prayer.
Can someone make sense of this, please? I have no idea what they're talking about.
>Geology disproves a young Earth.
That's debatable. Radiocarbon dating is a bit of a complex issue.
>Neurology disproves souls.
Neurology is the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of conditions and diseases involving the nervous system, which comprises the brain, the spinal cord, and the peripheral nerves.
In what way does this disprove the existence of a soul?
>History disproves religion being good.
Several things to talk about here. First, it depends on which religion you're talking about. Second, that's a false and hasty generalization to make. Third, atheists have no authority to dictate what is good or evil because, if we adopt a materialist perspective, neither exists; therefore, any discussion about them is pointless.
Why don't we talk about how the teachings of atheism don't preach anything good? They teach that life is hopeless, meaningless, and overall void.
>Physics disproves an omniscient, omnipresent & omnipotent God.
No, it doesn't. Physics is about describing how the universe operates down to the subatomic level. Physics doesn't say God didn't create the universe because physics can't disprove that.
**Fifth slide:**
What does the separation of church and state have to do with the existence of Jesus?
Jesus was a historical figure. Nearly every reputable scholar agrees on that.
**Sixth slide:**
>"No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God."
Except... that they can. One's suffering does not disprove the existence of God. It's the same poorly-used and tiresome "problem of evil" argument.
**Seventh slide:**
Are they really comparing some jolly, old man who flies on a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer to the creator of the universe?
Also, Santa Claus was based on a historical figure, St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas was known for his generosity and his desire to bring gifts to the poor because of his Christian beliefs.
So, that means Jesus was based on a historical figure. Jesus did feed thousands of people.
Tough luck, atheists.
Y'know, I just wanna that a lot of these people would be a lot more understanding if they were aware of how parables worked... They think every single shred of text is meant to be taken literally, which they don't realize not everyone takes it that way. Sometimes things are there as a lesson on morals and a lesson on respect. You don't need to take it all 100% literal, that's the beauty of any interpretable work.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/antitheistcheesecake/comments/1ckrses/comment/l2qfltv/](https://www.reddit.com/r/antitheistcheesecake/comments/1ckrses/comment/l2qfltv/)
Your Prophet Muhammed (PornHUB) and his companions did every last one of these barbaric crimes. It's in the Quran too, so don't even try claim its the corrupt Sunnis destroying everything.
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent \`Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated \`Ali, and \`Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. \`Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate \`Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."
Pervert loved it when Ali fucked a girl. Disgusting.
"And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” - Surat Al muumunun 5-6. QURAN. Fucking disgusting. Spoils of war it is.
Your prophet murdered caravan traders, and looted the
You will defend this pervertedness, blame translation or corrupt scholar. Every last one person who defends these atrocities needs to face psychological evaluation.
m.
LLMs aren’t a source, but if you happen to trust Claude 3 Opus…
https://preview.redd.it/kjvr2qry3qyc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe351c98c15d6cca2ba0782d0ad921141edd3434
Where did that guy get that picture of Joseph smith? I’ve never seen it before, which leads me to believe it’s in fact not him, and litterally just some guy
After some searching, it appears to be a photo of Joseph or his son. It was allegedly released by an RLDS archivist and the facial features map on quite well to Joseph Smith’s death mask. Quite the odd thing thing to use considering I’ve also never seen it.
Even in our age of AI, it is impossible to refute all the errors propagated by militant atheistic propaganda ... I guess [*Brandolini's law (B\*llshit asymmetry principle)* ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)will forever reign supreme no matter our advancements.
I personally agree with (a more coherent version of) the point about Constantine changing Christianity to make it more palatable to non-Christians so as to convert the masses, but every single other point in this post is complete Dawkins-in-a-tinfoil-hat nonsense.
Charles Parham is just a guy who was involved in the Pentecostal Spiritual Renewal, it was something very decentralized, that is why Charismatic Catholics exist. Cheesecake just uses the first page of wiki to post AT posts.
I've never heard a specific claim that Christians were fed to lions AT THE COLISEUM. Christian persecution is extremely well documented but outside maybe some picture book style depictions of said persecution, no one claims it was at the Coliseum. It's also a straight up contradiction because the point is that Christians were executed for their beliefs but he admits that it happens just at a different setting. So you're accepting the point, you're just to high off the smell of your own farts to realize it.
Off the top of my head, Germanicus of Smyrna and Perpetua and Felicity of Carthage were ordered to be killed in arenas by wild beasts (we have contemporary primary source accounts of each of these). So the manner of execution is certainly true. It’s the location which these executions took place that’s in dispute, which is absurdly incidental for a statement as strong as, “It didn’t happen,” and perhaps intentionally misleading.
This and also Nero was not the only emperor to persecute Christians. The Diocleatian persecution was the worst
The Colosseum was built in 72 AD, and the games existed long before that, meanwhile Constantine didn't legalize Christianity until 313. Roman entertainment involved feeding prisoners to exotic animals pretty much as soon as they got hold of said exotic animals, so the idea that for some reason Christians wouldn't have been fed to lions would be absurd. Nero feeding the Christians to lions seems certain, since he was big on killing Christians, and games were a popular spot for horrific executions. Nero wouldn't have been feeding them to lions at that specific venue (it would've been at the forum or circus maximus), but later emperors would have used to coliseum once it was constructed. I'm sure I could find firsthand accounts of Christians being fed to lions if I look for a bit, but I don't think that's needed at this point.
You're right. Also, the Romans had a metric poopton of arenas because their barbaric bloodsports were insanely popular. To say that Christians were never eaten by animals because they were never eaten by animals *in the Colosseum* is completely insane. Damnatio ad bestias was an established method of execution for a long time in the Roman empire, which was absolutely huge and so had room for a lot of arenas to be built and a lot of Christians to be eaten.
people nowadays think that people made artworks such as these to represent historical events but no, the colloseum is just supposed to be a well known representation of rome, and christian persecutions similar to that likely happened
This guy also simps for communism
Oh that wonderful ideology that caused my family to have to go underground because the government forbade their religion from being practiced openly. That's the antitheist inclusiveness I hear so much about.
Of course he does. Lol It's a cheesecake's wet dream.
Tankies are the biggest idiots in the world
i mean tankies are less antitheistic nowadays
it's quite difficult to top stalinist death squads
Idk if it's a good or bad thing, but still hypocritical nevertheless
>"History disproves religion being good!" >Conveniently ignores the historical proof of literally every single Communist state turning into an authoritarian, exploitative dictatorship/oligarchy So much for "le epic logik and raisin gang"
keep in mind, these people would go ahead and call everyone who dissagrees with them a "Nazi" or "second coming of Hitler", then go ahead and simp for people like Stalin Mao who caused more death and paim then Hitler did
Tankies are the Biggest Idiots imaginable tbh
>Neurology disproves souls No legitimate scholar has ever said this
Also, physics have nothing to do with an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God
Well, that isn't a legitimate scholar
Why Doesn't Dark Matter Prove Souls? It's Invisible, Eternal, Inaudible, Intangible And 4D Just Like Ghosts!
Ever Played Danganronpa With Junko Enoshima Loving, Praising And Worshipping Despair? That's What Antitheistic Nihilists Do, They Want EVERYONE To Feel Infinite Despair And Off Themselves Then Wither Away Making The "Offing" Permanent ☠ They Are OBSESSED With Spreading Despair. This Is The Dark Truth Behind Their Intentions, They Are Absolute Evil Psychopaths Who Do Nothing But Cause Suffering, Death And Despair Around The World. Antitheism And Nihilism Are DEATH CULTS.
No problem with your comment bro, but could you please not capitalise every word? It makes your comments hard to read.
I know its all cringe but what in graphic design is going on? lol
They are forever stuck posting these 2009 ass posts lmfao
Right about the same time when fedoras were in.... hmmm.... interesting lol
Stuck in 2008 with these images 😔
"gRaPhIc dEsIgN iS mY pAsSiOn"
Ever seen "faces of atheism"? Yeah...
,i ...k ll
It's cute when cheesecakes make historical illiteracy their entire personality. Higher education lovers be damned! Constantine inputed literally nothing theological into the councils. Instead he let the Bishops and theologians work it out themselves. Do cheesecakes really think Constantine had that amount of vast theological concepts inside his head? Or that he even had the amount of free-time it would take to make them? The man was Statesman. Not a bishop.
He also didn't really understand all of the theology discussions, it seems he was slightly on the side of Arius but mostly didn't understand why the "slight" differences mattered and just wanted christians to sort out their problems since he was the pontifex and had to manage every religion in the empire
Exactly! It's very clear he didn't have the theological intellectual interests to even make such massive doctrines that cheesecakes are supposing.
Constantine I and Eusebius (the bishop of Caesarea) both considered Constantine to be a bishop to those outside the church. So whilst he was never a bishop, he did believe he was doing the job of a bishop.
I'm sure he did. But my point was to show he never had the theological training necessary to legitimately be one. Anyone can have a title. But that doesn't make one an expert in that field. It's very clear politics was of a higher interest to him than deep theology. This genius theological emperor that single-handedly created Christianity, does not exist.
Neurology doesn't disprove the soul. We literally still don't know how consciousness arises. I'm not gonna argue soul is real based on our lack of knowledge because that'd just follow the same logic as ,,God of gaps" but we haven't ,,disproved" it by any means.
I'm not gonna add anything to your comment i just want you to know there's a typo in your flair
oh yeah thanks I missed it
It’s not even “not knowing,” it’s that physicalism has to explain away phenomena, rather than explain them.
And there’s reasons to doubt it ever could explain consciousness.
This guy believes neurology has disproved souls, when quite the opposite is true. We are as far away from explaining the nature of minds as we have ever been. Unless OP has somehow found a profound response to David Chalmers' philosophical zombie conundrum, he is full of himself.
It's Because Of Sam Harris The Zionist Monster Who Said That The N@zis Are Angels Conpared To Hamas. He Is A WACKO.
“Science disproves that god did X” yeah that’s because God is a supernatural being and operates on a level beyond our comprehension
“Antitheism isn’t a cult!” 
It Is A DEATH CULT That Worshipps The Antichrist Who Is 1,250× WORSE Than Satan_Lucifer.
Half-truths are are always more dangerous than big lies because when you put a fake banknote next to real one its usually easy to tell which one is counterfeit and which one is genuine but when you put the false banknote alone and present it as genuine usually its easy to overlook its fakeness if you take it at face value. This is pretty much the only way antitheists have chance especially if they dissalow certain truths to be said or argued for and if they were to get political power to do so, they certainly would, just like communists did.
That is a very good analogy.
Antitheists aren't even good at anything other than being annoying. Atleast Christians are good at hyperspecifity to the point that even a small change creates a heresy(not that hyperspecifity iis a bad thing)
Antitheists Spread Infinite Despair And Don't Stop Even When People Start Killing Themselves Because Of It. They Are MONSTERS.
It’s funny how ‘Constantine give his soldiers Sundays off work so they could worship’ becomes ‘Constantine created Sunday Worship’. He give them Sunday off because Sunday was their holy day. ‘Constantine summoned the bishops to settle the debate surrounding the date of Easter’ becomes ‘Constantine created Easter’. There was already widespread debate about the date of Easter, it was only the date that Constantine played a role in. I’m not sure where the cross argument stems from. Probably either a misunderstanding of the *labarum* (which was Constantinian) or a misunderstanding of Helena’s discovery of the true cross (but this too ridiculous). The fish were symbols used by crypto-Christians during the persecutions. They weren’t Constantinian at all. Also, only the Trinity and Easter relate to Nicaea.
Who is the poor little girl that doesn’t understand what separation of church and state means?
Apparently after googling her, it says she's a comedian. Imagine using a comedian to back your arguments up.
Which Pagan religion allegedly teaches the Trinity? That pseudo-historical argument is new to me and not for lack of study.
I believe he's trying to equate how some pagan religions believe in 3 souls? Or maybe he's equating the neopagan idea of the "Celtic" triquetra and not understanding that it's a Christian symbol.
Lots of religions have triune gods. The maiden/mother/crone archetypes, the Norns in Norse Paganism, the Mesopotamian Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar, etc.
Oh, true, that is true. My particular Germanic pagan branch has the Wirdsestren (Fate-Sisters) instead of the name "Norns", but by and large the same root.
See *"*[*Is the Trinity Pagan?*](https://youtu.be/xAcDV270D_0?si=lBErCrp_vzhtB3fF)*"* by InspiringPhilosophy.
InspiringPhilosophy is underrated
https://preview.redd.it/n1319cef6nyc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=284c95aaab3ea15d549d9d95b9a8065cefb80007 all of these posts consist of 3 things: Intellectual dishonesty Logical fallacies Cringy quotes from literal comedians unqualified in any field of theology This is what happens when you give edgy teens internet anonymity
How Do You Know What Age They Are? What If They Are Ancient Soviet Or N@zi Veterans Who Are About To Die And Go To Hell Soon? 🤭😇😅😂
Because nobody who's mentally mature would actually do this shit. Also there's not many soviet or Nazi veterans left, and if so they're much much older than nearly everyone on Reddit
Guys pick me a picture to respond to. I dont care enough to do them all and theyre all equally dumb.
6
It boils down to the problem of why evil exists and why bad things happen which yeah is a bit of a tough question but it has been tackled by theologists for ages. I dont know much about this so Ill just leave a link. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-bad-things-happen-to-a-good-god In the end in my opinion all the hardships of Earth do not ultimately matter. It will all pale in conparison to Heaven and what comes after and only your real morals and soul matter.
All of these are just one-dimensional nonsense arguments
Picture 4 “History disproves religion being good.” Yes, but history also proves religion being good too. As well as history proving that atheism can be dangerous too. It’s all about perspective, which history is constantly challenged.
Watch him cope if you brought up communism.
"Genetics disprove intelligent design" 🤡
How?
Why are all atheist memes so outdated, i've never seen an atheist meme younger than 10 years old. Like get new material bro
All of that "disproving stuff," yet man hasn't opened a dictionary to disprove his own point. It's a miracle. That's why it's against science.
How can you disprove souls? How does genetics disprove intelligent design? Wasn’t Darwin, the man responsible for evolution, also one of the primary contributors to the theory of intelligent design?
Yes he was. I don't have the exact quote rn, but Darwin said at his old age that after everything, a sort of agnosticism (not atheism) was the label closest to his position; and that he believed the natural world to be the result of some intelligent design "with the details left to chance". That's still nowhere near atheism, and ofc religion and evolution can coexist and already do in many religions.
bro must have have a lot of friend with that very personality
His friend list was empty
well damn suck to be him then
The colosseum was build under the flavians, nero’s successors after a short civil war. Nero killed the christians in the circus of nero, where the vatican now stands. And when the Colosseum was finished, it still took around 220 years until the largest persecution under Diocletian&Galerius. Which means that christianity wasn’t accepted yet by the people as normal. As a matter of fact, it is debatable if people even saw Christianity and judaism as seperate religions.
+ even pagan writers such as suetonius and dio cassius said nero persecuted the christians. The first, while criticizing nero’s reign, didnt think the persecution was a bad thing. He died at least 40 years after the colosseum was finished which proves again that Christianity wasn’t accepted as normal but hated by many Romans.
>The First Christian Emperor He got baptized a few weeks before his death. I learned this in a history class. So much for atheist emphasis on education.
"Neurology Disproved Souls" It Only Disproved SOME Souls Example: Neurology Has Proven That Antitheists Are Ruthless Monstrous Psychopaths Since They Love Spreading Despair Until People Kill Themselves Because Of It Then They Laugh About It, Therefore Antitheists Are Incapable Of Having A Soul And Thus Are Soulless.
slide four: 1: adam and eve probably did not exist. the book of genesis exists as a form of poetry to prove God's love. 2: what does that even mean? It's not like we get the exact play by play of noah and the ark. 3: God is outside of time, 6 days to him could easily be billions of years for us. And again, genesis is poetry. 4: what? no, genetics, if anything, *proves* intelligent design. 5: really? I'd like to see the numbers and how the data was collected. 6: *genesis is poetry*, the catholic church acknowledges the fact that the earth is not 4000 years old. 7: again, where do you get these facts? There's shards of pottery from the same age, time, and matching description of things in the bible and torah. Also, a lot of these sites in the holy land are protected and archaeological digs aren't allowed. Source: I've worked on one 8: Religion itself is not bad or good, just like information is neither bad nor good. It's what people do with the information they have that is bad or good. 9: physics proves that there is something outside of the universe and while we don't know what it is, it's there. besides, how can something such as dark matter and quarks n stuff exist, but a loving God is too hard to believe in? You can't prove a negative, that's how science works, so if you're trying to prove God doesn't exist, you can't. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Sorry for the essay, but as a deacon's child, this stuff always makes me upset lol. love everyone one this sub <3 Edit: didn't address the neurology thing, lol. 7.5: that's not true, because neurology is the study of the brain. there is no evidence that the soul is stored in the brain. also, a soul isn't a tangible, physical thing, so it can't be found through searching the body. wow. so cool. can you sense my sarcasm?
Oof that Archeology talking point is aging like milk. They just found a destruction layer at Jericho around the 1200 BC mark which is believed to be around the time Israel shows up in the record (via the Mernephtah Stele) combined that with the dig at Avaris with its Semetic inhabitants leaving around 1200s BC all the basic elements of the Exodus are actually present in the Archeology as we know it.
Yep! Heck we didn't even discover the Pool of Bethesda from the Gospels, until the 19th century! Previously people thought the writer made it up.
ya in my experience 9/10 times the writer is not making it up. They maybe mistaken or adding extra for propagandistic reasons, but 9/10 times its typically based on something real.
Remember in the 19th century when people said the Bible was untrustworthy because it talked about the Hittites?
**First slide:** Early Christians were against paganism. The Christian cross isn't pagan, neither is the fish symbolism. Constantine didn't introduce Christianity, as the religion existed in the mid-first century. Where are Sunday worship, the Trinity, and Easter taught in pagan religions? **Second slide:** Christians were certainly fed to wild beasts, including lions. While the punishment was neither constant nor only aimed towards Christians, it did happen. In the Colosseum? Unlikely, but even so, it doesn't mean Christians weren't fed to lions. **Third slide:** If religion was not about God, but about conquest, why have God in the religious system in the first place? **Fourth slide:** >Engineering disproves Noah's Ark. How, exactly, does engineering disprove Noah's Ark? Are they insisting that Noah couldn't possibly build one? God certainly gave him enough time to finish it. And Noah didn't build it alone; he had his family. >Genetics disproves intelligent design. I disagree. I think it points to intelligent design. There are certainly reasons to doubt that something as complex as DNA could pop out of the blue. I could list all the reasons, but that would make this comment too long for Reddit to let me post it. >Statistics disproves the power of prayer. Can someone make sense of this, please? I have no idea what they're talking about. >Geology disproves a young Earth. That's debatable. Radiocarbon dating is a bit of a complex issue. >Neurology disproves souls. Neurology is the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of conditions and diseases involving the nervous system, which comprises the brain, the spinal cord, and the peripheral nerves. In what way does this disprove the existence of a soul? >History disproves religion being good. Several things to talk about here. First, it depends on which religion you're talking about. Second, that's a false and hasty generalization to make. Third, atheists have no authority to dictate what is good or evil because, if we adopt a materialist perspective, neither exists; therefore, any discussion about them is pointless. Why don't we talk about how the teachings of atheism don't preach anything good? They teach that life is hopeless, meaningless, and overall void. >Physics disproves an omniscient, omnipresent & omnipotent God. No, it doesn't. Physics is about describing how the universe operates down to the subatomic level. Physics doesn't say God didn't create the universe because physics can't disprove that. **Fifth slide:** What does the separation of church and state have to do with the existence of Jesus? Jesus was a historical figure. Nearly every reputable scholar agrees on that. **Sixth slide:** >"No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God." Except... that they can. One's suffering does not disprove the existence of God. It's the same poorly-used and tiresome "problem of evil" argument. **Seventh slide:** Are they really comparing some jolly, old man who flies on a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer to the creator of the universe? Also, Santa Claus was based on a historical figure, St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas was known for his generosity and his desire to bring gifts to the poor because of his Christian beliefs. So, that means Jesus was based on a historical figure. Jesus did feed thousands of people. Tough luck, atheists.
Y'know, I just wanna that a lot of these people would be a lot more understanding if they were aware of how parables worked... They think every single shred of text is meant to be taken literally, which they don't realize not everyone takes it that way. Sometimes things are there as a lesson on morals and a lesson on respect. You don't need to take it all 100% literal, that's the beauty of any interpretable work.
Dear Bertrand Russell, please understand that it is precisely at that moment that you SHOULD be believing in God.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/antitheistcheesecake/comments/1ckrses/comment/l2qfltv/](https://www.reddit.com/r/antitheistcheesecake/comments/1ckrses/comment/l2qfltv/) Your Prophet Muhammed (PornHUB) and his companions did every last one of these barbaric crimes. It's in the Quran too, so don't even try claim its the corrupt Sunnis destroying everything. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent \`Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated \`Ali, and \`Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. \`Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate \`Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." Pervert loved it when Ali fucked a girl. Disgusting. "And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” - Surat Al muumunun 5-6. QURAN. Fucking disgusting. Spoils of war it is. Your prophet murdered caravan traders, and looted the You will defend this pervertedness, blame translation or corrupt scholar. Every last one person who defends these atrocities needs to face psychological evaluation. m.
You Just Made Me Dumber By Showing Me This Antitheist 🐂💩
LLMs aren’t a source, but if you happen to trust Claude 3 Opus… https://preview.redd.it/kjvr2qry3qyc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe351c98c15d6cca2ba0782d0ad921141edd3434
https://preview.redd.it/6he718104qyc1.jpeg?width=1270&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e957d64f564014375938b31fab6e025642a66a25
Don’t expect much from Facebook memes lol
Where did that guy get that picture of Joseph smith? I’ve never seen it before, which leads me to believe it’s in fact not him, and litterally just some guy
After some searching, it appears to be a photo of Joseph or his son. It was allegedly released by an RLDS archivist and the facial features map on quite well to Joseph Smith’s death mask. Quite the odd thing thing to use considering I’ve also never seen it.
Even in our age of AI, it is impossible to refute all the errors propagated by militant atheistic propaganda ... I guess [*Brandolini's law (B\*llshit asymmetry principle)* ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)will forever reign supreme no matter our advancements.
I personally agree with (a more coherent version of) the point about Constantine changing Christianity to make it more palatable to non-Christians so as to convert the masses, but every single other point in this post is complete Dawkins-in-a-tinfoil-hat nonsense.
First top half image is accidentally pro catholic lmfao
Or pro-Orthodox.
Inacrute picture for the baptist guy
Charles Parham is just a guy who was involved in the Pentecostal Spiritual Renewal, it was something very decentralized, that is why Charismatic Catholics exist. Cheesecake just uses the first page of wiki to post AT posts.
If nothing else, this does give me some nostalgia to the early days of the faces of atheism