Message from @Ehzek
Discord ID: 463538361047580674
Or are you going to pull the stick out of your sandy ass vagina and realize its a low effort satire for a moment of amusement?
You would also be cherry picking by your own argument continuing the cycle of ignorance you despise just because.
Unless you have a detailed analysis of Atheists Im unaware of.
The difference is that one is satire. The other seeks to be taken seriously.
The religion is satire?
Atheist Republic desperately posts terrible arguments as a means of trying to be taken seriously.
GET is satirical and knows that what they are posting is meant to be comical.
Your comparison is illogical.
Anything on social media generally isnt meant to be taken seriously
Thats reserved for .org or .edu sites
Hence why those sites can be used in school papers and for research and reference.
They might be serious but they arent to be taken seriously.
You are literally cherry picking atheists facebook page to discredit them all.
Again unless you have some huge reference guide on atheism that Im missing?
Yes... and Atheist groups are still a laughing stock to this day.
They post the same arguments and do the exact same thing as most other Atheist facebook pages because Atheism, in general, has lost any sort of ability to formulate arguments.
The basic argument Im getting here is that Atheists are a laughing stock because they dont do research and you found this out purely from Facebook. I guess its easier to see hypocrisy when you embody it so well. Again unless you have done your research, third time saying that.
No, I've pretty much consumed most of the media - from Youtube to Facebook to the websites - and I can safely say that they are a laughing stock.
Which again isnt serious. So you are accuse them with no research of accusing you with no research. You could have defaulted to atheists who feel their superior simply because no religion are annoying as shit. But you doubled down doing exactly what they did that upsets you. Facebook and youtube isnt a reputable source. Unless you are omitting the theoretical literature and research papers you read. You have yet to cite an athiest source that would be comparable to the bible you want them to read. You are getting it from secomd hand and unreliable sources.
Like in defense of religion Rag linked to Summa Theologica
But Summa isn't a source
Its biased but its still more than a facebook or youtube
It's Aristotle style logic and reason to come to a conclusion
Well not primary but atill a studied resource to be used for reference
Ehzek I would like you to read it, even if it doesn't convert you I think you'd be a fan of that kind of philosophical writing
Its still open in a tab
The author is Catholic of course but it's often mandatory in Protestant seminary
Idk I feel that even if we havent come to an understanding between each other it still feels like we learned a bit nore about our own beliefs.
Its one thing to hold a belief but quite another to articulate it
I think among your people, Christianity is often very misunderstood
Devout atheists think we usually just have blind faith and believe things just because the Bible said so, the Church is/was anti science etc
I would argue most people dont have mastery of the concepts they oppose
Just more knowledge of what they support
So I'm happy to be able to stand up for the Church even in its historical contexts if not the theological basis
Well among the religious athiets are mainly seen as blind disbelievers so its not exactly one sided
Agreed
Sadly there are blind Christians
Often the people born and raised in it, never had to do any research or reasoning, they just took their faith for granted and can't defend it when challenged
And they also can't appreciate it
Im not even sure how blind atheists exist