https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaDp06m5wCPTk6a-67_R-gA/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/21/why-we-need-the-welfare-state-more-than-ever

Gotta love this article, they literally admit that welfare is just a saftey net, but now they want more welfare because reasons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJFaD9ClX2M

Quick question, I know our community welcome all white religions as long as they adhere to the 14 words, but just as a quick survey, what's everyone's religious affiliation or dispostion?

I'm a nondenominational traditionally-minded Christian, but with no (((nonsense))) attached

Some weird unnamed mix of like eight different things, none of which should be compatible with each other.

Im a non-denomnational christian

i'm an atheist

roman catholic

kinda sad tbh i haven't met a single right wing atheist

besides myself

A lot of them call themselves agnostics when they come to the right, that's probably why.

oh okay

<- Athiest.

Still strongly believe that christian morals are the most conducive to our survival.

That's all you really need.

I respect people with that outlook, Rin

It's the only one that makes sense to me. Knowing pretty much anything about human history will get you there.

It's things like that are the reason I never doubt I'm on the right side in all this. Just look at our (((opposition))) the kinds of people it attracts and then look at our guys.

Not saying we're perfect, but as they say you can judge a tree by its fruit. Our guys try to better themselves constantly and fight for the betterment of their people at large.

For me, that's enough

Most "A"thiests that use the term as an indentity, like the youtubers and shit, they tend toward self aggrandizement and pretend that they have come upon some profound truth, they are too stupid to actually understand what is coming out of thier own mouths. The truth is that athiesm is the exact opposite, it's the lack of religious identity, not a substitute. It just means that your identity need be generated from other sources, namely your deeds and herritage.

This. There are two kinds of atheists.

kek I'm a fucking ninja!

love that meme lol

posting some oc

Gnostic Pagan is the short answer

germanic paganism

orthodox christianity

Here's something to discuss; what do you guys think about creating a new branch of christianity that has a focus on preserving the white identity? Is such a thing feasable, or even worth pursuing?

an article on the subject: https://nationalvanguard.org/2017/05/a-new-religion-for-us-part-1/

@Orchid I disagree wholeheartedly, man made religions will not stand the test of time

Something similar exists called Christian Identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity). It's more focused on supremacy rather than preservation though.

i recommend paganism

not the hipster fag neo-paganism

but like the original paganism

basically anti-racemixing and anti-homosexuality

What paganism are you talking about? Its a broad term

germanic paganism

Ok, so it talked about race and sexuality?

yes

from what i've seen and learned from a certain pagan discord server

it's pretty right-wing

wotan, the chief deity of germanic paganism, stands for "will of the aryan nation" in a sense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifalyeaE8Oc

Wow, cool

most europeans are connected in a sense by their aryanism in a sort of unconscious that's been repressed by the christianization of europe

should the white man rise up, i believe we'll see a revival in paganism

Well, thats what mcNallen is selling you 😂

not just him

It is true, but not in a literal sense

obviously

i view it more as a universal need to take back our homeland

Hmm, I‘d say more that its our inner wotan, our will to fight and defend ourself

mhm

I‘ve read the Norse Legends by Neil Gaiman, but I couldn’t find a translation based on the original

damn

I just started looking into paganism, you ever hear of Rodnovery? Ultra nationalistic and are race realists

I havent, where can I read more about it?

Havent done too much digging but it seems hard to track down good books. The book of veles is their holy book, so i am going to try and find a translation into english. But for now it seems the internet is the best source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOMNdvKZtQ
You dont have to agree with him on every issue, but his arguments against christianiy are good ones.

Thats a long one, I will give it a watch after work

this goyim, i watched that video this morning, he's on the same intellectual level as Thunderf00t except Thunderf00t actually brings relevant facts to the table. the atheistic group masturbation is petty and pathetic.

> the whole video is cherrypicking 1 christian

ok, cool.

> "scientists from a long time ago were only christian because they had to be!"

lol, nigga wut?

> "christianity blocked progress and is responsible for the slow growth of science and innovation!"

he literally says that christianitys Modus operandi is "Fight a war against progress, lose that war against progress, claim credit for that progress". so much for getting something out of this video unless you have a confirmation bias.

> 8:10-9:05

yeah, ok bud, there was absolutely no innovation or technological development between 0 and 1500 AD. sure.

the guy then proceeds to go over the whole "the supremacist theory is flawed because the oppression a certain group recieves prevents it from being equal to another group" gambit, ignoring how one group would not be able to impose its oppression over another in the first place if it was not superior in some way.

> *even more atheistic group masturbation*
> "maybe theists should have tried listening to us rather than killing us and censoring us"

i hope this guy isn't serious.

> goes over again how literally no progress was made scientifically from 0-1500 AD
> "scientific progress only began because of atheist scientists"

uh huh.

> "it was only the muslims keeping old greek knowledge that inspired the change that led to the scientific revolution while christianity delayed it"

uh huh.

> the whole "the bible aproves of slavery" autism
> "slave owning is a christian value"

just like the violence in the bible the mentioning of slavery is time specific, and its not even slavery, its indentured servitude, for no longer than 7 years. the bible does not encourage slavery.

"the christians was oppressin us peoples of science! sheeeeeit!" every few minutes gets really tiring, really fast.

> "the 10 commandments are BTFO by the constitution!" (i will post interesting screenshot)
> "the freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly are the opposite of christian values"
> "christianity has often enforced the opposite of our values as americans"

this guy is a vociferous dogmatic airhead who has no clue what hes talking about. 17 minutes in and the only "content" is him masturbating and crying about how mean and bad christians are and how they ruin everything.

> christians got lucky with the printing press that was invented right before the scientific revolution!
> "the invention of the printing press helped to disseminate scientific discoverys over a wide area" (paraphrasing)
> it was random chance that this happened

huh, just a coincidence i guess.

> explorers brought their found knowledge and ideas with them back to europe
> *deliberate word twisting and speculation*
> the knowledge helped contemporary greek scholars in the rise of renaiscance humanism

i see, he's misatributing the knowledge from "christians" onto future "atheists" like with the printing press.

> "it waz tha greeks tha savd uz from da ebil chriztians maaaaan! sheeeeeeit!"
> "WE WUZ ARTISTS N' SHEIT! tha chriztians had bad art n sheit!
> *dogmatic ramble about how awful christian art was*
> "the christians destroyed history because it was contrary to scripture"
> "EBIL CHRISTIANS!"
> "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL N BAD N SHEEIT! REEEEEEEEE!"
> literally admits that rich christians were the only ones able to buy the art of the renaisance

ok, whatever you say shlomo. (still waiting for a real argument)

> christian scientists were actually atheist because scientists shifted away from christianity and to atheism. they were also persecuted by le ebil christians.
> all these great scientists were part of the aristocracy so they only said those things to keep the peasants in check

uh huh.

> the bible is worthless because it contains no practical knowledge

ok.

> even *more* masturbation over how evil christians are and how great atheists are
> "christians suppress science"
> "christianity is just as bad as islam"

ok. so i wasted 40 minutes watching this and probably the same amount preparing a response. this whole video was not an argument. just some atheist masturbating over and over, i could have been on pornhub, i'm pretty sure their videos would have a better plot and been more enjoyable to watch. no real solutions, just complaints about how evil christians are and how they are not even 1% responsible for scientific development, every advancement under them was just a coincidence. you can find way better arguments against christianity based on facts instead of feelings and rhetoric, this was lazy, sad, and pathetic.

> capitalism BTFO?

> christians are supposed to force their beliefs on others

You're a christian right?

non denominational, yes. why?

Ok

Anyway, like I said I dont agree with all the stuff he says, but I think it is undeniable that christianity has done an immense harm to scientific progress in the years 0-1500 AD, would you agree?

I certainly would agree, but it doesn't take away from the fact that christianity has also served as the structural latice for most of western civilization.

no, he is misatributing and creating links that don't exist. almost completely ignoring non-religious history in europe. he did hit the nail on the head with the printing press and how it allowed the spread of knowledge.

Which is what most of these youtube athiests conveniently gloss over.

he also blatantly lied constantly about "muh absolutely no scientific progress for 1500 years" meme

The underlying metaphysics for most of the weestern world is implicitly derived from a christian worldview.

He obviously didn't mean that there was NO scientific progress.

why did he say that multiple times then?

was he overexagerating that just like everything else he said?

But the foundations of most of our legal system for example come from Roman and Greek civilizations.

That said, christianity has done great harm in the past, especially to scientific pursuits.

I said metaphysics, not laws.

I am not saying that christianity is all bad, I'm just saying there are better alternatives

I was talking to @Belisarius

I'm not sure there are.

i hope it does not appear as though i am arguing for how great christianity is. i'm only talking about this video and how wrong this idiot is.

this video is inflammatory cancer

So is 90% of youtube.

^

I dont want to talk about the guy or the video, just about the notion that christianity, especially in contact with governement, can cause tremendous harm.

> can

anything can cause tremendous harm

You are pulling a piece of shit out of a pile of shit and saying 'look how shitty this one piece of shit is".

WILL

is it the idea, or the people

?

What do you mean?

is it impossible for a society run by christians to be succesful and progressive?

No. Not at all.

Not impossible, but inprobable

Unless they are orthodox.

but you said "WILL" @P14

Then it becomes very difficult.

Yes, most of the time

I dont want to play a word game

i think it is important for people to be clear, otherwise others will take it the wrong way

Yes, but I was not unclear, I just used coloquial language

Anyways, this shouldnt be the topic

i am confident that modern day christians who are not autistic are perfectly normal and uncorrupted human beings with flaws and good parts just like everyone else.

What do you think about the stat that shows that there are more atheists in science than theists?

This is something I have spent a great deal of time on, I've come to the conclusion that the supernatural elements of religion are really the embodiment of ideals, and can be recognized as such. The traditions and ethic that comes from christianity in particular are undeniably useful to a society, and there's nothing wrong with using the scientific method to identify that which makes society prosper, and adopting them. Regardless of the superstitions and nonsense at the core.

@P14 those are true, what do you think the meaning for that is?

The fact is, that christianity seems to work.

^

For the vast majority of people at least. And it works for those who don't want to expend the effort that I have trying to understand it all.

I would say that people who study science come to the conclusion that there is no god. I would also say, that atheists are more likely to become scientists.

It's because an empirical outlook naturally leads to athiesm.

Due to the lack of evidence for god.

Would you prefer a pagan, atheist, or christian society? Or a mixture of any of the three?

Christian, hands down.

@P14 how would a climatologist find proof that god doesn't exist from their work?

It's not clear at this point that an athiest society would be stable for any significant period of time.

Well, I would quote Rin on that one:
"It's because an empirical outlook naturally leads to athiesm.
"

What christianity does that makes it so effective, is that it tempers human's natural tendency towards tribalism.

I would say a combintion of paganism and atheism is the best.
That way you stay with the natural and psychological truth.

i think it works the same way that men and women find different jobs more appealing then others, atheists and christians are interested in different things as well. i would assume that most scientists were atheist BEFORE going into their respective fields.

Athiesm doesn't do that by it's nature.

Does what?

OH

But why would you really temper your tendency towards tribalism?

Actually atheists are the least tribal

That's not how it works though, those who are empirical and evidence based are that way usually llong before college. That mindset lends itself to both athiesm and scientific careers.

^

VC?

Yeah

You aren'ty understanding what I'm saying, Athiests are human, and therefore are just as tribal as everyone else.

that would be better

Just look at how easily the athiesm movement was destroyed by tribal division when the SJWs infiltrated it. The notion that they are somehow less tribal by nature is absurd.

Gotta pick up kids from school, back in a bit.

have to make a phone call back in 2 minutes.

kk

only reason i can think of for atheists being the least tribal is that most are left-leaning

and therefore all about that equality

Going left is really just reorganizing the tribes. If anything I would argue they are more tribal, not less. Modern Christianity is unique in the way it satiates the tribal instinct without being destructive.

Well, here we are again. Atheism clearly isn‘t a belief system and we all seem to agree that some kind of belief system is necessary. My initial thought was that they are less tribal, because they don‘t have a religion to look at as their tribe, but again. Atheism is not a belief system, it matters what people adopt instead of the belief in god and then we can look if they are more or less tribal.

Also we would habe to take a look at what tribalism really means.
I personally don‘t think tribalism is of great importance in this debate. The important thing about religion is mindset. And I would again point out that christians have a rather weak mindset generally speaking. This is not based on religious text or church doctrine and history, but rather on how christians behave today.

Yeah, this is basically my point. It's not entirely clear that a "athiest" society that didn't adopt a different belief system would be stable at all. The question is does the substituted belief system inherently require some sort of metaphysical or supernatural foundation to be effective in that role. I'm not sure it doesn't.

Exactly, if we can have a belief system, that doesn‘t need to lie to it‘s believers, that would be great.
If we look at the debate between Christianity vs Nordic Paganism, I would say we are mainly talking about testosterone. Christianity keeps testosterone in check, while Paganism let‘s it reign free. At least this holds true in the general interpretations. A thing right in the middle would be great, but I don’t think we have found that yet.

This also shows that science and religion are mostly conflicting.

I never said they didn't conflict. I just said that it doesn't take away from the fact that it's the backbone of western society.

Yeah, the others said that though.

Oh.

The problem is that religion is not sustainable in the long term, because people will see through the lies

I don't necessarily think of them as lies.

Well, but people do

That‘s what matters

To be sure, there are liars in the ranks, but the belief system itself is sincere.

And has a "truth" of it's own kind.

What I‘m saying is that people naturally drive towards atheism, because it makes more sense.

Atheism has increased rapidly since the scientific revolution.

I don't think so. It's far from the obvious for most people. At least in the US.

Well look at Europe

Actualy I think athiesm recently declined here.

What?

Don't quote me on that, I seem to remember seeing something recently.

Oh, atheists dont get a lot of kids?

That may be

No, just the pecentage of people that self identify on census and surveys and such.

Hmm

Maybe it was just a certain age group.

Or demographic.

Maybe because of the immigrants

There are a lot of credulous people out there.

And even with all the progress that been made in science, the vast majority of Americans are still religious.

And a good percentage of those I would consider "devout".

Yes, but they are becoming more secular.

So it's far from obvious that it's a natural position to hold.

It does not happen that fast, it takes a few generations.

There's something about the ideal of god, an entity that represents all of society's most revered traits and ethics, that seems almost necessary for a society to function.

I gtg

Ill read it later

Have a good evening. Gotta drive to the airport in a couple hours so I'm staying up.

>What I‘m saying is that people naturally drive towards atheism, because it makes more sense.
Literally questioned you and you cannot defend any of your belief. You are still parroting it.
>My son, you are adult now! Will you chose to use knowledge research and intelligence to further your belief? Or will you be an autistic screaching dogmatist?
....
REEEEEEE My belief is logical. Christianity is declining because they are stupid dark age religion... Hurr Durrr -- @P14

>The problem is that religion is not sustainable in the long term, because people will see through the lies
You cannot defend any of your belief.

Btw, https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Atheist

Kek

..... P14 is typing

The "because it makes more sense" regarded the existence of god.
You say I am parroting things, I dont know why you are assuming that, what I said was my personal opinion.
You say I cannot defend any of my belief. I dont know what you are referring to.
I never said christianity as a whole is stupid and I dont think that "imitating" me in order to make fun of my views is the way to adulthood (">My son, you are adult now! [...] REEEEEEE My belief is logical. Christianity is declining because they are stupid dark age religion... Hurr Durrr -- ").
Indeed it seems to be immature at best.
Then you repeated that I cannot defend my beliefs, I dont know where you're getting this from.
I want to reassure you, that I will take a closer look at christianity and its philosophy, especially looking at the connection between science and the religion.
You will probably recognize that this will take some time.

My point was that independently of all that, christianity gives you a weak mindset. You can point to all the occasions in history when it was supposed to be "strong", but modern Christians are rather weak.

>people will see through the lies
>atheism, because it makes more sense.

@P14 Remember when we debated yesterday?
Or are you pretending that didn't happen. Well, if I humiliated that badly then I probably would pretend it didn't happen too.

>Moderninity

Who is strong in moderninity?

The US military is strong

The VDV I imagine is strong

We did debate, no doubt about it, but the debate fell rather short, because you have a different view on history than I do. I was willing to accept that my view as it was being tought in school, TV, etc. may not be correct and I said that I would go ahead and research it.

We also debated on the existence of God. I believe you were there for that.

No

I was not

I think you started on that when I left

I'm not quite sure I believe that but for now I'll operate under such an assumption. It doesn't give much benefit at this point.

Do you not remember godel's ontological arguement?

I have heard of it, but I dont remember you explaining it.

I actually opened the pdf a view hours ago.

Are the formulas part of formal logic?

Yes, it was writen by Kurt Godel, a Doctorate in mathematic? logic.

Do I need to understand formal logic in order to understand the argument correctly? I guess not?

Yes

You will.

I chose that one because it was verified by an automated theorem prover.

A program designed to show if a theorem is valid or not.

The simplest one, although not simple, is the Anselm Ontological.

Cosmological arguements are easier to swallow.

Do you want to VC?

Sure

im gonna leave you two to it

Euthyphro

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506712842&sr=8-1&keywords=how+the+catholic+church+built+western+civilization

So I went over that paper on the theorem provers, it's interesting, the math is way over my head, but I'm not so sure it matters much. It seems to me that it really only sets out to prove the validity of the tech and methodology(which is impressive and likely very valuable). It does "prove" Godel's Proof with the caviat that all it's presuppositions remain intact. However, It does nothing to address the inherent flaws in axiom that I was trying to get at when we were speaking. The authors even admit as much, placing the task of determining thier validity squarely on human minds (they also acknowledge that the prover does as much to prove some of the original critiques of the argument valid as the argument itself). I've never found the ontological argument very compelling, not just because it's a purely logical argument arrived to by reason alone with no material proof involved(and trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter), but because it seems to take things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait, or that positive traits in general are universal and unchanging, or that the traits we give to concepts like this have any bearing on thier actual existence at all, or that a single entity is correct conceptually, and a few others. It's a kind of obscured circular argument, and as such, as fun as it is to think about, I think it's pretty useless and isn't going to be convincing any significant number of people any time soon.

wew

On a side note, that ED article is funny as fuck, I had never read it before. Henceforth I'm referring to myself as an apathiest. kek

@Rin what paper are you referring to? Anything with math in it (especially Godel's work) sounds like an interesting read

http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf

>trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter
>God is illogical so he shouldn't be reasoned towards
>You are a man of reason and cannot be trusted.
Please kill me.

>Existence is not a positive trait