But that's rather proof that atheists are more tolerant of Christians, than Christians are tolerant of atheists

@ETBrooD Bullshit!

That hurts, right?

Every single attempted nominee who dared to call themselves anything other than a sect of Christianity has gone absolutely horribly in the polls, regardless of their promises and ideals

Christians are more tolerant of atheists, because they failed to suppress the rebellion, because they wanted to be more subjugative by passive law, rather than oppressive force.

See Islam

Not much atheism there

Most atheists are agnostic, so no

They're by far more tolerant

Semantics.

You brought it up, man

If you think that's semantics that just proves to me you don't know much about atheism

You don't say "Jesus may not have been magic" you say "Jesus don't real."

Yeah, Jesus wasn't real

You outright deny history,

No, I deny a story

You deny the ROman Empire.

I don't

I think Jesus might have been real, but was just either a scapegoat or -as is historical- a martyr, blown way beyond proportion.

Not that it matters, Christians clearly don't give a fuck about Jesus

??

Jesus is the center of Christianity, right after God

You might as well say Richard Dawkins isn't real, because his books are bullshit too

Supposedly

Not supposedly

But they do not follow any of his action or teaching

And if I don't agree with someone's books being factual that means they aren't real

They simply follow a new testament of god, written after Jesus

Of course they don't follow his actions or teachings

A lot of which was quite anti-Jesus

They're human

And everyone at Oxford who says they know Dawkins is a liar

The principles of Christianity became the most successful in the world, so, wether or not Jesus' stories in the bible are utterly accurate or not, they did do the job of spreading like a wildfire. Presumably because they satisified a need or two in the inception.

Because you can just make up stuff like that can't you?

Well who wouldn't support a godly figure who came down and - in his story - taught humans to just respect and provide for each other, and not cast judgement lightly?

It's all one big conspiracy right?

Not a conspiracy, just dogma

No it has to be a conspiracy

Why?

Well, the Romans did tend to conspire.

Quite a lot.

It has to be a bigger conspiracy than anything else in the world

Why?

You never see a conspiracy this big that didn't get busted by one of the original members.

Do you know how cults start?

Not even Communist reprogramming got past the radar.

Christianity was outlawed in the initial days. Martyrdom was the starting point of Christianity. Makes sense for Jesus to be displayed as a Martyr.

Truth is too important to people.

oof

Screenshotting that one, too

Why?

The Ramen Empire will Triumph! praise kek

https://gyazo.com/c80dfb922f3e6c2bdd70e7cb2f6b68b2

I love this collection of memes

So you can put it in your fedora compilation?

Ah, but information wasn't as easy to spread, and control of information was -far- easier in those days. Hence why the Catholic Church gained so much power and wealth, regardless of how many people suffered because of their influence.

Oh look, I found someone who believes in truth! Not like Jesus taught about that or anything!

Way easier to capture and force people back then as well

A fictional character taught us about truth lmao

Guns really did become a great equalizer...

The fool says in his heart, there is no God

Then I'm a proud fool

Illiteracy helped a lot. And the fact that the bible hasn't been translated into common languages, so the generic population couldn't read the bible. People with ulterior motifs used that to justify whatever with it.

@Aquila Fiacra Then why is it still the same?

Never be proud. Pride is the greatest and worst of the sins. The sharpest of all double-edged blades.

@Jake the Exile Pardon?

What do you mean?

People weren't completely illiterate, The early church spread through letters.

A lot of which only the local noble could read for them

And the Old Testament was read widely, and publicly.

By the local noble, or pastor.

You act like everyone involved with Christianity was stupid and uneducated.

Paul was a Pharisee.

Easier to pay a smaller workforce

The illiteracy rate of the middle ages was extremely high. Nearly 100%. Only a few chosen were able to read. Rarely any of the commoners could. Let alone Latin. They had to rely on pastors, preachers and monks.

Blaise Pascal Quotes. There are two kinds of people one can call reasonable: those who serve God with all their heart because they know him, and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him.

That's why Martin Luthers translation of the Bible into common German sparked a revolution or two.

The people who spread the teachings and wrote to churches with instruction (which is the bulk of the New Testament) were all literate in several languages.

Yeah, but not the common farmer

The people that made the bulk of any population before the industrialization

The comon farmer could still listen.

And those who spoke were not exempt from abusing their position

Hey, not everyone involved with Christianity was stupid and uneducated. A few of them went on to become great scientists, who then after becoming intelligent and educated, denounced Christianity, or were just plain persecuted for learning too much and tainting the populace.

#ListenAndBelieve

Christianity is a cultural stabilizer, not so much a scientific one

@Lios Oh please. The only time when Christianity actively denounced science is when it went out of its way to create an openly contrary dogma.

Best way to shut someone uneducated up is to give them a ridiculous answer they have no reason to deny.

You realize that lasted for hundreds of years, right, Jake?

It never stopped. The anthropologists basically created their own sect.

So if you disagree with that stance, why stand up for it now? :^)

Because the dogma of Darwinism is just that, a dogma. It's not science.

It's a presumption.

It's fairly well proven.

A dogma with a rational approach, a lot of which simply adopted the concept of skepticism.

With what? Spontaneous generation?

Or rather the darwinian theory of evolution.

A good amount of it has also been disproven, so it isn't taken as gospel like Christianity likes to do.

I agree with @Lios
``Christians are more tolerant of atheists, because they failed to suppress the rebellion, because they wanted to be more subjugative by passive law, rather than oppressive force.
See Islam``

That's the key with the sciences, they're malleable, they change. Science is always open to new information. Dogma is not. Religion is not.

No, no. It still operates on a purely naturalistic mindset that everything came from nothing with no guiding force whatsoever and that people are no better than monkeys.