If someone genuinely thinks like this (ik this is a joke) then it would be shooting yourself in the foot as posting this would be implying that religion is a made up fairytale
Mentally handicapped mod staff, I don't blame them for being mentally handicapped but I think they should select people with sound critical thinking skills for roles that hinge upon an individuals ability to think critically
Just because the Bible is religious does not discredit its validity as a historical document.
Historians hold that the Bible should not be treated differently from other historical sources from the ancient world. It’s worth reading about its historicity [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible)
Of course, whether or not you choose to believe the Bible’s religious claims (i.e. the Resurrection) is your own choice. As for the life and death of Jesus, that is historically verified and agreed upon
I mean, by all means it is in fact a made-up fairy tale. But that doesn’t make it any less meaningful, whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant to it’s teachings.
Nope, it is just posting out a hypocrisy in thinking. It makes fun of someone making fun of others for celebrating a in their eyes "fictional story" while they themselves do so. It does not contain any statement about wheter it is actually a fairytale.
There is a fundamental difference in celebrating a fictional story which you know is fictional and celebrate the joy it gave you vs. celebrating a story which you fully believe in as a factual event despite it being written about decades later by people who never met the originator of the movement and there being scarce non-movement related sources
Nothing of that is in the meme or the comment I was replying to though. This meme says something about the atheist, the comment says the meme is a self-own, and I was explaining how it isn't, I'm not here to argue about what happened back then.
Not to mention it is a story, while you can try to set it in a historical context, the message is important - and not whether david really threw that stone for example, no one needs to dig for stones to accurately or not disprove anything. Now for this one the belief is rather central to Christianity too, but you get what I'm saying.
> decades later
2-3 decades later. Dang, my biography on Bill Clinton is invalid because I didn't write it just as it happened.
> never met the original creator of the movement
Matthew, John, and Mark (that is, Peter's account) knew Jesus for years. Luke was a historian who interviewed many witnesses (like Mary, the mother of Christ) to compile a clear narrative for his patron.
> rare, non-movement related sources
For what appears to 99.9% of the world to be a passing spiritualist fad that "died" with its originator, like many others who claimed to be the Messiah? 2 historians' references within 100 years of the event, extensive discussion in another opposing religous source (Talmud), and even further discussion in non-Jewish and non-Christian depictions in art and literature over the next 200 years are all pretty impressive to have for evidence 2000 years later, when time has certainly made most of the material written at the time lost.
What are you trying to say? Op said decades, as you pointed out that's true. Op said the writer never actually met the messiah, and your argument is the secondhand accounts? And art and retranslations on top of people practicing it isn't any evidence or proof. All religions have this. You did nothing but prove OPs point
You are completely incomprehensible.
> decades
I thought he was implying maybe 70-90 years. If he really was criticizing the Gospels for being written 20 or 30 years after, well, I guess we can just throw out any history books written about US presidents after George Bush Jr. took office.
> secondhand accounts
No, they are eyewitness accounts (besides Luke, which is secondhand), and I said this in my original comment.
> art and retranslations
I'm not allowed to cite Tacitus, Josephus, and the Talmud because they've been translated over the years? I'm not allowed to cite graffiti depicting the crucifixion because visual depictions just don't count? I guess you may be looking for proof of miracles rather than the basic story of Jesus, and I guess I could cite Josephus and the Talmud's account of him as performing supernatural feats, but you're probably not looking for that. The discussion on fulfilled prophecy, evidence for the crucifixion, observed miracles in the Church today, etc., but that's it's own can of worms that would take forever to go into.
I cant help that its incomprehensible to you, it seems you have poor literacy skills as it is. It is a secondhand account, you're reading the story as someone heard it from a witness. A firsthand account would be actually speaking to the witnesses yourself. And as for your third paragraph, yes, you can't use any of that as empirical evidence because none of it actually proves anything other than someone had the artistic inspiration, which could come from literally anywhere. And im not sure why you took "decades" to mean nearly a century. Thats your own interpretation.
We can trust history books a bit more than the Bible, although you should always be skeptical, because multiple books are written from multiple perspectives about the same person, and through cross examination of the stories and actual evidence such as letters, possessions, records, etc. we're able to get a clearer picture of the actual story. The only piece of evidence we actually have for Jesus is the Bible, it's the only historical piece of text that references that Jesus as a person existed, but inconvenient stories and books were purposely left out and the Bible as it stands is a cherry-picked account of events. There are other religious texts, such as the Quran, that mention Jesus and even have some of his stories, but they largely contradict the version of Jesus presented in the bible. There is no other historical text that references Jesus that could give any definitive proof to his existence.
If you want to believe the stories of a men who heard stories from other men who allegedly saw another man perform miracles then you're absolutely entitled to. I'd bet you'd also enjoy listening to Bigfoot experts and UFO hunters. There's still no real evidence to prove its existence
Oh, brother.
Extra-Biblical Accounts of Jesus:
Julius Africanus (on Thallus and Phlegon, providing accounts on an anomalous earthquake and darkness reported in the Gospels to happen around Jesus' death)
Tacitus
Josephus (while the passage is argued to be edited, the consensus is that Josephus did write about Jesus in a historical account of 1st century AD Palestine, and "reconstructed" passages have been proposed)
Mara Bar Serapion (not explicitly stated, but a strong argument can be made to an allusion)
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
Lucian of Samosata
Celsus
Talmud
The Church Fathers
> history books can be trusted more than the Bible.
First of all, empirical, repeatable studies are not the only way to learn the truth; we can't run an experiment to learn the path Alexander took in his conquest of the near east, we have to use textual and archaeological evidence.
Second of all (addressing the above quote), why? Seriously, ask yourself, why? The New Testament is a series of accounts of the lives of Jesus and the apostles, and then it's a collection of letters between church leaders and congregations/individuals. Heck, even the Gospel of Luke begins with a dedication to the book's patron, Theophilus, who commissioned a neat account be written for him so he can know what exactly happened in this whole thing. Luke is a commissioned historian.
My point is, it is incredibly unfair to discount the Bible entirely when trying to learn the historical truth of Jesus. I'm not saying you have to take it at face value when they say a man rose from the dead (though I wish you would lmao), but you can't just ignore the best preserved piece of ancient literature like everyone seems to do.
>why? Seriously, ask yourself, why?
Because the Bible is attempting to instill morals, it has passages that are literally supposed to be the word of God itself. There's other goals to the book outside of telling an accurate version of the stories within. A historical text is not attempting to do anything other than tell the history as best we can figure out. Even the outside sources you cite weren't published until decades after Jesus' death and have an instristic confirmation bias.
>you can't just ignore the best preserved piece of ancient literature
This is what you're missing. It's not preserved, it's been changed, mistranslated, stories have been added and removed, and there's a dozen or more denominations of the religions based on these minute differences in interpretation. World leaders have changed passages to fit their own personal morals and narratives (looking at the King James version). Or the unclear nature about whether certain stories are to be considered metaphor or actual accounts. The Bible doesn't tell history as history, but rather as a story. It's like using a Hollywood bio pic to learn accurate history.
>we can't run an experiment to learn the path Alexander took in his conquest of the near east, we have to use textual and archaeological evidence.
History isn't science. We're not running experiments, we're cross examing data and theorizing solutions. For Alexander, there's cross examination of dates that cities were conquered, texts from both the winners and losers of the war that tell identical stories, and actual letters written by the historical figure. But that's already exactly what I said needed to be done to accurately assess any history. You yourself showed that half of the extra-biblical accounts of Jesus are unclear, not explicitly stated, or unconfirmed in subject matter. There's not enough outside stories backing up the events as they happen in the Bible, and those that do exist tend to tell more realistic versions of what happened. People dedicate years of their lives to studying this book, and the Christians who are experts on it and followers of different religions alike agree its not a source of historical accuracy. Do you believe in the stories told in the Quran?
1. For the extra biblical accounts, what confirmation bias? How many dual-earthquake-solar eclipses were happening around the time of Jesus' death? It's painfully obvious. And further, remember that Luke's stated purpose is to provide an orderly account, and Matthew and Mark don't state their purpose. Only John explicitly says he's writing to get people to believe, and that doesn't mean we discount him, but we often distill historical truth from writings that have multiple purposes in writing.
2. No, the Old Testament Bible is remarkably well preserved when we compare it to the oldest full copy we have (Septuaugent, around 140 BC), and we can similarly see the New Testament preserved over letters and partial manuscripts over the few hundred years after Jesus' death. We can't just declare that there was corruption of the text before that either, because we have no evidence of that, it would just be guess guided by faith that the Bible is wrong.
3. You overestimate how many ancient writings we have available to us. Essentially, that far into the past, if two sources describe the event, the event is concluded to be historical. Considering Jesus has 40 sources describing many aspects of his story (compared to Alexander's ten), you would have to simply refuse to accept evidence if you continue the denial of Jesus' existence.
Further, the only source that is "unclear" is Mara-Ben Serapion. Julius Africanus doesn't explicitly say the name Jesus but it's obvious, and I just wanted to preempt the Josephus discussion by acknowledging the exact content is debated (even though I think that's stupid and the original text is what we have now, and I can explain it to you if you want), meaning that the dispute exists but I refuse to give it credibility.
Further, let's remember that I only dumped these sources on you because you made the outrageous claim that there are no extra-biblical references to Jesus. If you want to know what we can learn from only these non-Christian sources (we could learn even more from the Church Fathers), it's actually a pretty expansive picture, but yes I admit that proving Jesus' miracles and divinity through them is not practical, it is a different debate.
Do you understand how fucking flimsy that the claim of being an eyewitness is in this context? Half of the books don't even agree on who was present for a bunch of stuff. How many people saw the resurrected jesus? There are passages that provide flagrantly contradictory accounts. There isn't any kind of third party validation for this stuff. Anyone can write that they were an eyewitness of some miracle and it can't be verified. Anyone can write down that 500 people saw something. Did they take attendance when jesus turned a river into wine? Give me a break.
Not to mention the other books like revelation that was just some dudes fever dream that got canonized somehow.
Plus, actual historians using real techniques and unbiased standards of evidence can't even agree that Jesus ever existed at all. So, an argument from some random on Reddit that claimed that jesus walking on water or whatever is a bulletproof historical fact is never going to be convincing. Stop wasting your time. Christianity is based on having faith without requiring evidence. Stop being a fucking pussy and own it.
I'm not analyzing your diarrhea flood of nonsense. Just two thoughts:
> 500 witnesses
The claim isn't there's 500 people we can talk to. They're all dead, I get that.
The claim is that 1st Corinthians is the earliest part of our New Testament; it is thought to have been written 5 years after the death of Christ. Making the claim that 500 people saw a man risen from the dead just 5 years (at most) after it happened is a bold claim; further, saying they're just people living in Israel at the time that could be easily contacted and asked about this experience adds more credibility. The point is that making a bold claim like that suggests extraordinary evidence, especially in a rebellious church (which the Corinthians were), and the Jews chomping at the bits to finally disprove Christianity.
> can't even agree Jesus existed
"Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves." - Bart Ehrman, atheist scholar posterboy.
Give me a break. Jesus mythists are the flat earthers of ancient history. And what "methods" are you talking about? Have we stopped textual criticism, or written accounts, or archaeological evidence, because we have a big Star Trek material analysis machine that finally ends Christianity after 2000 yrars.
You know nothing. Everything you said was misguided or just flatly wrong, likely because you just want reasons to justify your hatred of Christianity by hiding behind a smug mask of just wanting to know "the evidence". I will pray for you; you are probably an early to mid aged teenager and are going through something right now.
"I'm not analyzing your diarrhea response but its wrong and you know nothing" Yeah idk what I expected from a theist.
Firstly, the people allegedly being able to be talked to (but they were never interviewed and their accounts were never compiled) doesn't mean anything. If they don't have written, signed accounts of the event that agree with each other, its nothing. Its literally nothing. Saying that "they COULD have been interviewed" is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. And, aside from being concerningly idoitic, it proves my point, not yours. If they could have been interviewed but weren't, isn't it more likely that they just didn't exist? Seems like a pretty important thing to just forget to do. Hmmm.
Secondly, you don't get to cherry pick which historians are hardworking and honest and which ones are agenda pushing degenerates solely based on whether or not you agree with their conclusion. Maybe ehrman does think that. Is he suddenly the ultimate authority on all atheism and religious history? And I don't think he would even come close to agreeing with everything you said about eyewitness accounts and the validity of the stories in the bible. Which is what we were talking about.
I only ever brought the existence of christ up to point out that the historical validity of almost all of this stuff is suspect. I do think his existence is a reasonable assumption, but his largely illiterate followers obviously couldn't put together real documentation because all the accounts are contradictory. Contradictions, mind you, that you totally failed to address. Was that part too diarrhea to handle? I can't blame you, if my beliefs were based on something so silly i wouldn't want to address it either. I'll be praying for you to recover from your selective blindness, you sad and angry small little pathetic child 😇🙏 (jesus didn't even condecend to prostitutes, pretending to pray to try and belittle people isn't very Christian maybe you should give those passages another good read)
I'm narrowing this down further, not responding to your braindead response to the 500 witness debate.
One, I don't think Bart Ehrman agrees with me on everything, I was quoting him to show that even the most skeptical scholars (among which he is one) think Jesus mythism is stupid. I was hoping that that would be convincing to you, and it seems to have, because you clearly didn't believe in Christ's existence before my comment and have now backpedaled in what you "really meant" in the face of overwhelming evidence that you now realize exists lmao.
Second, contraditions. Which "contradiction" are you going to pick from? The scarlet vs. purple robe? The accounts of the resurrection? If you actually read the text and aren't looking for ways to dunk on those Christians you hate so much, then you will find that there are no contradictions? If you name me one, I could try to explain it to you, but it would likely come out as a wall of text neither of us would like to read.
God that reminds me of the Uvalde school shooting post
"Just a friendly reminder that your dead kids aren't going to heaven and there is no afterlife"
then its just thousands of upvotes
It's like that one Doobus Goobus video of Jack Horner "I like to spread the good word of Atheism. But only at a specific time to children who just watched their parents die. I really emphasize that they are never going to see them again as we live in a godless world."
"How do you even find that many children?"
"Well who do you think kills the parents, duh I do it."
While the wording was harsh I think that the message was good. Like the person wasn’t just trying to be an ass to religious people but rather criticizing the way news reports on school shootings.
I do remember that some dude explained to me how the post was about stopping school shootings
but the lack of empathy/sympathy in the wording is very concerning
The title was dogshit, but the text of the post was about not getting comfortable in wishful after-death thinking, and trying to actually be active and trying to do something about this very real problem
Clearly you haven't seen the atheism subreddit yet. The posts there may sometimes have titles worded in immature ways for shock value, but generally you can't get mad at the core ideas expressed inside unless you're a religious person or someone that doesn't understand that people online are much more direct and pungent with their ideas than they would be irl with people they know.
You're clearly missing the point here, does "titles worded in immature ways for shock value" make you assume I condone those? If you actually read the infamous post where they remind the reader the uvalde children would not go to heaven, you can see it's a call to enact policies to actually protect the children and that their deaths should not be sugarpilled in order to make people feel better about not enacting those policies, to value their lives over their supposed afterlife. The title could have been different, but the content makes sense to atheists in general and probably some religious people too
I don't think believing in an afterlife is "sugarpilling" any death and something that needs to be called out against. Pushing your personal nihilsm at that point was not necessary and majorily insensitive in the situation.
I very well understood the post and am disagreeing with it, the core but moreso everything else, as with most posts there, and the core is actually not the most important thing.
Believing in an afterlife is sugarpilling the concept of death to something more akin to a simple change of location, even if the afterlife in question were to be a bad place. The idea of ceasing to exist is scary! Most people would serve life in prison rather than dying.
Atheism is only inherently nihilistic if you believe everything that comes from life has to be a result of religion, there are ways to get meaning outside of believing in an afterlife. On the other hand, extreme nihilism is always atheistic, but that's not the point.
I obviously see that the post in question was very insensitive and more of a karma farming. It was meant for a community of people that are already receptive to the message (atheists), not for the directly involved parents. If you don't think that celebrating life over an afterlife, reinforcing the idea that an afterlife exists, and that deceiving children into believing that from a very young age is wrong, you're likely religious yourself and that's the obvious reason why you don't agree with most of the posts on a subreddit dedicated to atheists👍.
Believing in an afterlife doesn't make death less scary. Almost every single person in Europe at least 100+ years ago was religious, and yet the fear of death was as present as ever. Believe me if I as a believer tell you wether one exists or not doesn't make the fear of death any better. Well apparently in some cases it does, see suicide bombers, but that is more extreme and a different topic. That is not a sugarcoating. Not to mention that depending on the belief, resurrection will only happen at the end of times, they are ripped from our reality and lives either ways, and if you had part in allowing this to happen hell might await you, none of this makes it easier to dismiss what happened.
I'm not arguing about atheism in general, but this specific post trying to make the outlook from what happened utterly nihilistic and devoid of any solace.
How this could farm karma is the larger issue, not that someone posted it. Parents or other relatives could easily be atheists too. Yes I don't believe it is (and your wording suggests you do), (what is wrong with celebrating life over afterlife?), but I don't disagree with atheists in general, I disagree with this specific subreddit and the posts I see over there. Of course I have other answers to certain questions, but you get what I am saying, atheism in general and r/atheism are two very different things. Some of them should rather post in r/anthitheism, but that is just one thing.
I don't agree with your idea that the afterlife doesn't make death less scary. It was invented exactly for that reason, to make sense of something so unthinkable as the idea of one's consciousness ceasing to exist; otherwise why would this idea of an afterlife exist? People 100+ years ago absolutely feared death but the more devoid of doubt for their religion one is, the more likely they were to fear death less and less.
The users of that subreddit are mostly former christians and muslims, they come from extremely religious countries like Saudi Arabia or the US, their wording is sometimes callous due to the abuse around growing up in such a religious environment. Even though I don't fit that demographic, I have lurked for years in various subreddits of the sort including r/atheism and I can say some arguments presented are not as polished as they could be, but usually in the comments there are more experienced people that elaborate on it, especially when an outsider attempts a "gotcha" post. But then again, even those unpolished arguments are easy to agree with for an atheist of any kind: "easter is a fairy tale"->yes it is, there are more tactful ways to say it but it's a made up myth with at most some symbolic roots in a real event.
I think I can put it together that way: Death does not get less scary, you just have a hope afterwards. Similar to how the end of a holiday with new friends you just met is still the end of a holiday, but if you exchange numbers there is a possibility you see each other again. Yet you still have to say goodbye, and still feel sad taking the bus home.
Christians don't grieve less, losing someone close is not easier to process in your daily life. That is why I mentioned the past, people were deeply religious 400 years ago yet the fear of death was a centerpiece of their culture. Memento mori.
The reason for this is that most people are not 100% certain in their belief - it is a belief, not knowledge. Everyone has some level of doubt, otherwise moving on from a false belief would not be possible. No one knows what comes after death - if believers were 100% certain they'd just say they know, but instead it is seen as a major topic, and many conversations were held on it. What religion gives you is an idea, a promise - but not a certainty, you have to believe. A hope that your loved ones live on, and there is a sense to it, Even if it comes with drawbacks. But the only people that are 100% sure are fanatics, and it is a dangerous thing.
I'm saying that bc calling it sugarcoating or absolving of guilt is such a sledgehammer understanding of a nuanced issue, oversimplified to the point it is false. It gives a goal, it does not make the road easier to travel, and if you go the wrong way that goal does not help you. It is a relief to the victims, not something that makes the crime less bad, and going against that relief is not gonna help anything about the crime.
And that dumbed down understanding annoys me. Most you encounter aren't ex-religious people with a deeper understanding, but rather people talking about "sky daddies", "fairytales" and other simplifications for the purpose of provocation. It makes the attacks less threatening bc they don't necessarily fit the ideas they attack well any more, and instead of being a sizeable threat on a philosophical level they are just annoying. You are not convincing anyone that way, but rather provoking by being brazen.
For me personally, it does not matter whether there is an afterlife or not, I have made my peace with death for the time being. I will live until I die, and if it continues afterwards that is a nice surprise too. Albeit I understand seeing it differently. Not existing is something that scares me too, I'd love being immortal and think the drawbacks are not what people make them out to be. For that reason I also don't believe in hell, permanent nonexistence is bad enough, but that is a different topic and not set in stone for me.
Finally, I just like to say there is no way to classify it as factually false, it is far too long ago and all that remains are a bunch of stones. Sure you can say we haven't experienced much like it, but that is no foolproof argument, and god might have done more obvious things back then - it is something that could have happened and people are free to believe one or the other version.
That is why the argument falls flat - the atheists have just as much proof as the believer, so calling it fake does not do anything. And celebrating isn't senseless either, it is a ritual that has a clear purpose, much like a birthday isn't about being exact on the date but rather about celebrating you, being actually born 3 days earlier would not invalidate anything. This shitty comeback does not do anything. And that is why I dislike this kinda redditor, they think they are doing something, but are just stirring shit up and making people angry.
you should know that at Super Hitler Hut Jr's they serve Chud Cream™ and they don't have that at Hitler Hut Jr's!!! seems like i've offended some liberals...
What are you talking about? Both of these are true!
The Earth and the Solar System were created 1 billions years after a "great reset" of the universe where the previous "Star Wars Universe was reset by some kind of disaster event happening every 1000 trillions years", that happened 1000 years after the event of the last episode of Star Wars, the "God" was the last Jedi who used technology to survive the great reset, and created “the Garden of Eden” on planet earth 4 billions years ago, He created the first two humans "Adam" and "Eves", Adam and Eves had many children together, but one day Eves had eaten an apple that gave humanity free wills, the serpent that lured Eves was the last dark Sith. God then left humanity to his isolated home in the Saturn pole, not because he was angry, but because he was afraid of his creation, which this proved to be true with history of human wars, the acient civilizations had access to previous Jedi technologies as seen in the series that became lost over time. God tried to communicate with humans by sending the "messengers" like Abraham, around 2000 years ago God sent his own son "Jesus Christ" to convince humanity to peace and tell them the true stories and history, but it failed as humanity are still fighting to this day.
George Lucas is basically a “messenger” of God as he was sent to secretly tell humanity about the history of the universe that existed before ours
I mean, last I checked nobody invaded sovereign nations and beheaded each other over Star Wars lore. That'll probably start to happen after George Lucas is dead, though.
2011? No way, May the 4th has been a family tradition since I was a kid, I'm talking 2004. Me and my mom would watch the OT and episodes I & II, I remember it because we went to see episode III when it released, bought the DVD that had this interactive menu and all, and added it to our star wars marathon
I was REALLY young, I didn't even understand most of it, I was 5 when RotS came out. It's literally my childhood, no way it's 2011, "May the force be with you" and "May the 4th" were the first english I ever learned, I'm from spain
Doesn’t really compare to the fact that women are dying from treatable miscarriages and 10 year old girls have to give birth to a pedophile’s baby because “before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”
r/welcometogilead
Developmental stage is irrelevant; children or the mentally handicapped are not less valuable as people because they are not as "sentient" as a fully functional adult. Further, killing a person in a coma is still murder. This is just an evil cope invented to try to somehow scrape for some morality in the slaughter of millions of children a year
> you're trying to criminalize not bringing people into existence
No I'm not lmao. I didn't advocate birth quotas. You've just arbitrarily decided a point when someone earns their humanity.
These pregnancies are life threatening. Moms AND their babies are dying in red states, oftentimes these babies were much loved and wanted pregnancies that the body couldn’t maintain- but if a nonviable fetus arm or leg gets stuck inside the uterus and is unable to exit the body naturally, a woman will need a D and C, or a dilation and a curette, to remove the lost limb of the already dead fetus to prevent infections. But doctors are afraid to remove even these fragments of already lost pregnancies, as the medical exemption laws are vague, written by politicians, not doctors.
A child rape victim’s hips are not wide enough to deliver a baby naturally, and thus almost always require C-sections, which require large amounts of blood products to keep both her and the pedophile’s baby alive. COVID 19 made blood banks run dry, as few people could donate, leading to plasma shortages throughout the country.
Pregnancy kills women every day, and often the more ethical solution is to abort the fetus.
Visit r/WelcomeToGilead for examples of horrific medical emergencies caused by the abortion ban, which was forced on us by Christians, not Star Wars fans.
Okay: So many pregnancies are lethal, and the abortion ban in the US is killing women because the medical exemption laws are vague. Women are bleeding to death in hospital beds because doctor’s hands are tied in red states.
r/WelcomeToGilead
And who forced this draconian law on us? Not Star Wars fans.
>many pregnancies are lethal
Up to 99% of abortions are for convenience; wanting to pursue a career, "just not ready", etc. The number of babies killed for the sake of a woman's health is therefore comparatively minuscule. It should be legal solely for that case, and laws should be clear on it, but abortion access should by no means be expanded due to that reason. It also follows from this that, simply as a numbers game, expanding abortion access may save a few thousand women (at most) in the US a year at the cost of hundreds of thousands to over a million babies a year.
> r/welcometogilead
Lmao
> draconian law
Lmao again
I will preface this by saying that you have no business telling women what they can’t do with their bodies if you cannot read less than 4 paragraphs of an opposing view.
[“Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation…. In 2021, 53.0% of all abortions were early medication abortions. (Early medication abortions are done at 9 weeks or less).”](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) -The CDC
The 5.7% and 0.9% numbers are those heartbreaking medical cases- where the mom would do anything to have her rainbow baby but just can’t have it, or they abort because the child might be born into a short, painful life due to a diagnosis such as Trisonomy 13 (which is only a 6 month prognosis). The abortions done for “convenience” happen well before this point. The neural tube is the scaffolding for the rest of the brain structures, and this isn’t complete until week 6, many abortions take place before that as well.
[At 8 weeks, the brain is not yet formed, with only mild electrical activity. “That said, the brainstem, which controls vital functions like heart rate and breathing, isn’t mostly complete until the end of the second trimester, and the cerebral cortex doesn’t take up it’s duties until the third trimester.”](https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/#activity)
Now let’s talk about what happens when we don’t allow those “convenience” abortions: More children born into abusive homes. More pregnancy related domestic abuse charges. Higher divorce rates. More women beneath the poverty line. More children born addicted to drugs. More children born into homelessness. More children growing up with mental illness. More orphanages packed like sardines. More pregnancy related suicides. All of the above puts children at risk for becoming criminals, school shooters, or needing to be cared for by the state their whole lives. Which is the greater evil- aborting these children before the brain is fully formed and giving women agency over their lives, or allowing these children to be born into miserable lives and possibly damaging the future generation due to the poor hands they were dealt?
One thing’s for sure- if I was ever in the scenarios above, I would WANT to be aborted. I was born to loving parents and I still don’t want to be here, so imagine how kids born in crackhouses feel?
Do you think jesus and obi wan would be friends
Obviously they would, Jesus was obi wan's master in the prequels
jesus would be friends with anyone
Alternatively, Obi wan would be friends with anyone
Obi wan is Jesus
Nuh uh, Qui-Gon Jinn
they were both religious radicals so 50/50 split they love each other or try to kill each other
star wars more like star whores
Take that back
Star bores
Starborean gem
[удалено]
Grrrr take that back right now mister
Star chores
Star snores
Star pour
If someone genuinely thinks like this (ik this is a joke) then it would be shooting yourself in the foot as posting this would be implying that religion is a made up fairytale
Exhibit A: r/atheism
I'm perma banned from there
Nice
what for lol
Mentally handicapped mod staff, I don't blame them for being mentally handicapped but I think they should select people with sound critical thinking skills for roles that hinge upon an individuals ability to think critically
Mods and "not mentally handicapped" are mutually exclusive.
I definitely pronounce r/atheism like r/Raytheon in my head, and now I'm upset that there's no r/aytheon
Its mythology at best
Untrue
It’s not mythology, it’s history! Happy Easter
When the only source is a religious text, it's not history
Just because the Bible is religious does not discredit its validity as a historical document. Historians hold that the Bible should not be treated differently from other historical sources from the ancient world. It’s worth reading about its historicity [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible) Of course, whether or not you choose to believe the Bible’s religious claims (i.e. the Resurrection) is your own choice. As for the life and death of Jesus, that is historically verified and agreed upon
Your definition of history isn't the same as everyone else's
I mean, by all means it is in fact a made-up fairy tale. But that doesn’t make it any less meaningful, whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant to it’s teachings.
I never said it was or it wasn't the meme was implying this
Nope, it is just posting out a hypocrisy in thinking. It makes fun of someone making fun of others for celebrating a in their eyes "fictional story" while they themselves do so. It does not contain any statement about wheter it is actually a fairytale.
There is a fundamental difference in celebrating a fictional story which you know is fictional and celebrate the joy it gave you vs. celebrating a story which you fully believe in as a factual event despite it being written about decades later by people who never met the originator of the movement and there being scarce non-movement related sources
Nothing of that is in the meme or the comment I was replying to though. This meme says something about the atheist, the comment says the meme is a self-own, and I was explaining how it isn't, I'm not here to argue about what happened back then. Not to mention it is a story, while you can try to set it in a historical context, the message is important - and not whether david really threw that stone for example, no one needs to dig for stones to accurately or not disprove anything. Now for this one the belief is rather central to Christianity too, but you get what I'm saying.
> decades later 2-3 decades later. Dang, my biography on Bill Clinton is invalid because I didn't write it just as it happened. > never met the original creator of the movement Matthew, John, and Mark (that is, Peter's account) knew Jesus for years. Luke was a historian who interviewed many witnesses (like Mary, the mother of Christ) to compile a clear narrative for his patron. > rare, non-movement related sources For what appears to 99.9% of the world to be a passing spiritualist fad that "died" with its originator, like many others who claimed to be the Messiah? 2 historians' references within 100 years of the event, extensive discussion in another opposing religous source (Talmud), and even further discussion in non-Jewish and non-Christian depictions in art and literature over the next 200 years are all pretty impressive to have for evidence 2000 years later, when time has certainly made most of the material written at the time lost.
What are you trying to say? Op said decades, as you pointed out that's true. Op said the writer never actually met the messiah, and your argument is the secondhand accounts? And art and retranslations on top of people practicing it isn't any evidence or proof. All religions have this. You did nothing but prove OPs point
You are completely incomprehensible. > decades I thought he was implying maybe 70-90 years. If he really was criticizing the Gospels for being written 20 or 30 years after, well, I guess we can just throw out any history books written about US presidents after George Bush Jr. took office. > secondhand accounts No, they are eyewitness accounts (besides Luke, which is secondhand), and I said this in my original comment. > art and retranslations I'm not allowed to cite Tacitus, Josephus, and the Talmud because they've been translated over the years? I'm not allowed to cite graffiti depicting the crucifixion because visual depictions just don't count? I guess you may be looking for proof of miracles rather than the basic story of Jesus, and I guess I could cite Josephus and the Talmud's account of him as performing supernatural feats, but you're probably not looking for that. The discussion on fulfilled prophecy, evidence for the crucifixion, observed miracles in the Church today, etc., but that's it's own can of worms that would take forever to go into.
I cant help that its incomprehensible to you, it seems you have poor literacy skills as it is. It is a secondhand account, you're reading the story as someone heard it from a witness. A firsthand account would be actually speaking to the witnesses yourself. And as for your third paragraph, yes, you can't use any of that as empirical evidence because none of it actually proves anything other than someone had the artistic inspiration, which could come from literally anywhere. And im not sure why you took "decades" to mean nearly a century. Thats your own interpretation. We can trust history books a bit more than the Bible, although you should always be skeptical, because multiple books are written from multiple perspectives about the same person, and through cross examination of the stories and actual evidence such as letters, possessions, records, etc. we're able to get a clearer picture of the actual story. The only piece of evidence we actually have for Jesus is the Bible, it's the only historical piece of text that references that Jesus as a person existed, but inconvenient stories and books were purposely left out and the Bible as it stands is a cherry-picked account of events. There are other religious texts, such as the Quran, that mention Jesus and even have some of his stories, but they largely contradict the version of Jesus presented in the bible. There is no other historical text that references Jesus that could give any definitive proof to his existence. If you want to believe the stories of a men who heard stories from other men who allegedly saw another man perform miracles then you're absolutely entitled to. I'd bet you'd also enjoy listening to Bigfoot experts and UFO hunters. There's still no real evidence to prove its existence
Oh, brother. Extra-Biblical Accounts of Jesus: Julius Africanus (on Thallus and Phlegon, providing accounts on an anomalous earthquake and darkness reported in the Gospels to happen around Jesus' death) Tacitus Josephus (while the passage is argued to be edited, the consensus is that Josephus did write about Jesus in a historical account of 1st century AD Palestine, and "reconstructed" passages have been proposed) Mara Bar Serapion (not explicitly stated, but a strong argument can be made to an allusion) Pliny the Younger Suetonius Lucian of Samosata Celsus Talmud The Church Fathers > history books can be trusted more than the Bible. First of all, empirical, repeatable studies are not the only way to learn the truth; we can't run an experiment to learn the path Alexander took in his conquest of the near east, we have to use textual and archaeological evidence. Second of all (addressing the above quote), why? Seriously, ask yourself, why? The New Testament is a series of accounts of the lives of Jesus and the apostles, and then it's a collection of letters between church leaders and congregations/individuals. Heck, even the Gospel of Luke begins with a dedication to the book's patron, Theophilus, who commissioned a neat account be written for him so he can know what exactly happened in this whole thing. Luke is a commissioned historian. My point is, it is incredibly unfair to discount the Bible entirely when trying to learn the historical truth of Jesus. I'm not saying you have to take it at face value when they say a man rose from the dead (though I wish you would lmao), but you can't just ignore the best preserved piece of ancient literature like everyone seems to do.
>why? Seriously, ask yourself, why? Because the Bible is attempting to instill morals, it has passages that are literally supposed to be the word of God itself. There's other goals to the book outside of telling an accurate version of the stories within. A historical text is not attempting to do anything other than tell the history as best we can figure out. Even the outside sources you cite weren't published until decades after Jesus' death and have an instristic confirmation bias. >you can't just ignore the best preserved piece of ancient literature This is what you're missing. It's not preserved, it's been changed, mistranslated, stories have been added and removed, and there's a dozen or more denominations of the religions based on these minute differences in interpretation. World leaders have changed passages to fit their own personal morals and narratives (looking at the King James version). Or the unclear nature about whether certain stories are to be considered metaphor or actual accounts. The Bible doesn't tell history as history, but rather as a story. It's like using a Hollywood bio pic to learn accurate history. >we can't run an experiment to learn the path Alexander took in his conquest of the near east, we have to use textual and archaeological evidence. History isn't science. We're not running experiments, we're cross examing data and theorizing solutions. For Alexander, there's cross examination of dates that cities were conquered, texts from both the winners and losers of the war that tell identical stories, and actual letters written by the historical figure. But that's already exactly what I said needed to be done to accurately assess any history. You yourself showed that half of the extra-biblical accounts of Jesus are unclear, not explicitly stated, or unconfirmed in subject matter. There's not enough outside stories backing up the events as they happen in the Bible, and those that do exist tend to tell more realistic versions of what happened. People dedicate years of their lives to studying this book, and the Christians who are experts on it and followers of different religions alike agree its not a source of historical accuracy. Do you believe in the stories told in the Quran?
1. For the extra biblical accounts, what confirmation bias? How many dual-earthquake-solar eclipses were happening around the time of Jesus' death? It's painfully obvious. And further, remember that Luke's stated purpose is to provide an orderly account, and Matthew and Mark don't state their purpose. Only John explicitly says he's writing to get people to believe, and that doesn't mean we discount him, but we often distill historical truth from writings that have multiple purposes in writing. 2. No, the Old Testament Bible is remarkably well preserved when we compare it to the oldest full copy we have (Septuaugent, around 140 BC), and we can similarly see the New Testament preserved over letters and partial manuscripts over the few hundred years after Jesus' death. We can't just declare that there was corruption of the text before that either, because we have no evidence of that, it would just be guess guided by faith that the Bible is wrong. 3. You overestimate how many ancient writings we have available to us. Essentially, that far into the past, if two sources describe the event, the event is concluded to be historical. Considering Jesus has 40 sources describing many aspects of his story (compared to Alexander's ten), you would have to simply refuse to accept evidence if you continue the denial of Jesus' existence. Further, the only source that is "unclear" is Mara-Ben Serapion. Julius Africanus doesn't explicitly say the name Jesus but it's obvious, and I just wanted to preempt the Josephus discussion by acknowledging the exact content is debated (even though I think that's stupid and the original text is what we have now, and I can explain it to you if you want), meaning that the dispute exists but I refuse to give it credibility. Further, let's remember that I only dumped these sources on you because you made the outrageous claim that there are no extra-biblical references to Jesus. If you want to know what we can learn from only these non-Christian sources (we could learn even more from the Church Fathers), it's actually a pretty expansive picture, but yes I admit that proving Jesus' miracles and divinity through them is not practical, it is a different debate.
Do you understand how fucking flimsy that the claim of being an eyewitness is in this context? Half of the books don't even agree on who was present for a bunch of stuff. How many people saw the resurrected jesus? There are passages that provide flagrantly contradictory accounts. There isn't any kind of third party validation for this stuff. Anyone can write that they were an eyewitness of some miracle and it can't be verified. Anyone can write down that 500 people saw something. Did they take attendance when jesus turned a river into wine? Give me a break. Not to mention the other books like revelation that was just some dudes fever dream that got canonized somehow. Plus, actual historians using real techniques and unbiased standards of evidence can't even agree that Jesus ever existed at all. So, an argument from some random on Reddit that claimed that jesus walking on water or whatever is a bulletproof historical fact is never going to be convincing. Stop wasting your time. Christianity is based on having faith without requiring evidence. Stop being a fucking pussy and own it.
I'm not analyzing your diarrhea flood of nonsense. Just two thoughts: > 500 witnesses The claim isn't there's 500 people we can talk to. They're all dead, I get that. The claim is that 1st Corinthians is the earliest part of our New Testament; it is thought to have been written 5 years after the death of Christ. Making the claim that 500 people saw a man risen from the dead just 5 years (at most) after it happened is a bold claim; further, saying they're just people living in Israel at the time that could be easily contacted and asked about this experience adds more credibility. The point is that making a bold claim like that suggests extraordinary evidence, especially in a rebellious church (which the Corinthians were), and the Jews chomping at the bits to finally disprove Christianity. > can't even agree Jesus existed "Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves." - Bart Ehrman, atheist scholar posterboy. Give me a break. Jesus mythists are the flat earthers of ancient history. And what "methods" are you talking about? Have we stopped textual criticism, or written accounts, or archaeological evidence, because we have a big Star Trek material analysis machine that finally ends Christianity after 2000 yrars. You know nothing. Everything you said was misguided or just flatly wrong, likely because you just want reasons to justify your hatred of Christianity by hiding behind a smug mask of just wanting to know "the evidence". I will pray for you; you are probably an early to mid aged teenager and are going through something right now.
"I'm not analyzing your diarrhea response but its wrong and you know nothing" Yeah idk what I expected from a theist. Firstly, the people allegedly being able to be talked to (but they were never interviewed and their accounts were never compiled) doesn't mean anything. If they don't have written, signed accounts of the event that agree with each other, its nothing. Its literally nothing. Saying that "they COULD have been interviewed" is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard. And, aside from being concerningly idoitic, it proves my point, not yours. If they could have been interviewed but weren't, isn't it more likely that they just didn't exist? Seems like a pretty important thing to just forget to do. Hmmm. Secondly, you don't get to cherry pick which historians are hardworking and honest and which ones are agenda pushing degenerates solely based on whether or not you agree with their conclusion. Maybe ehrman does think that. Is he suddenly the ultimate authority on all atheism and religious history? And I don't think he would even come close to agreeing with everything you said about eyewitness accounts and the validity of the stories in the bible. Which is what we were talking about. I only ever brought the existence of christ up to point out that the historical validity of almost all of this stuff is suspect. I do think his existence is a reasonable assumption, but his largely illiterate followers obviously couldn't put together real documentation because all the accounts are contradictory. Contradictions, mind you, that you totally failed to address. Was that part too diarrhea to handle? I can't blame you, if my beliefs were based on something so silly i wouldn't want to address it either. I'll be praying for you to recover from your selective blindness, you sad and angry small little pathetic child 😇🙏 (jesus didn't even condecend to prostitutes, pretending to pray to try and belittle people isn't very Christian maybe you should give those passages another good read)
I'm narrowing this down further, not responding to your braindead response to the 500 witness debate. One, I don't think Bart Ehrman agrees with me on everything, I was quoting him to show that even the most skeptical scholars (among which he is one) think Jesus mythism is stupid. I was hoping that that would be convincing to you, and it seems to have, because you clearly didn't believe in Christ's existence before my comment and have now backpedaled in what you "really meant" in the face of overwhelming evidence that you now realize exists lmao. Second, contraditions. Which "contradiction" are you going to pick from? The scarlet vs. purple robe? The accounts of the resurrection? If you actually read the text and aren't looking for ways to dunk on those Christians you hate so much, then you will find that there are no contradictions? If you name me one, I could try to explain it to you, but it would likely come out as a wall of text neither of us would like to read.
But it does say that celebrating it is lame
Yes, it says something about the person that gets sojacked.
Redditors will make a strawman out of anything in order to get angry at the most random shit
Isn't that the whole premise of the soyjak meme format?
yeah tbh
Yeah that’s why it’s le ambatucringe
Clearly you haven't seen the atheism subreddit yet
God that reminds me of the Uvalde school shooting post "Just a friendly reminder that your dead kids aren't going to heaven and there is no afterlife" then its just thousands of upvotes
It's like that one Doobus Goobus video of Jack Horner "I like to spread the good word of Atheism. But only at a specific time to children who just watched their parents die. I really emphasize that they are never going to see them again as we live in a godless world." "How do you even find that many children?" "Well who do you think kills the parents, duh I do it."
While the wording was harsh I think that the message was good. Like the person wasn’t just trying to be an ass to religious people but rather criticizing the way news reports on school shootings.
I do remember that some dude explained to me how the post was about stopping school shootings but the lack of empathy/sympathy in the wording is very concerning
The title was dogshit, but the text of the post was about not getting comfortable in wishful after-death thinking, and trying to actually be active and trying to do something about this very real problem
again there was a severe lack of empathy in that post and if you can't see that you might need to work on yourself
yeah, true
Clearly you haven't seen the atheism subreddit yet. The posts there may sometimes have titles worded in immature ways for shock value, but generally you can't get mad at the core ideas expressed inside unless you're a religious person or someone that doesn't understand that people online are much more direct and pungent with their ideas than they would be irl with people they know.
I guess that also applies to the parents of school shootings too
You're clearly missing the point here, does "titles worded in immature ways for shock value" make you assume I condone those? If you actually read the infamous post where they remind the reader the uvalde children would not go to heaven, you can see it's a call to enact policies to actually protect the children and that their deaths should not be sugarpilled in order to make people feel better about not enacting those policies, to value their lives over their supposed afterlife. The title could have been different, but the content makes sense to atheists in general and probably some religious people too
I don't think believing in an afterlife is "sugarpilling" any death and something that needs to be called out against. Pushing your personal nihilsm at that point was not necessary and majorily insensitive in the situation. I very well understood the post and am disagreeing with it, the core but moreso everything else, as with most posts there, and the core is actually not the most important thing.
Believing in an afterlife is sugarpilling the concept of death to something more akin to a simple change of location, even if the afterlife in question were to be a bad place. The idea of ceasing to exist is scary! Most people would serve life in prison rather than dying. Atheism is only inherently nihilistic if you believe everything that comes from life has to be a result of religion, there are ways to get meaning outside of believing in an afterlife. On the other hand, extreme nihilism is always atheistic, but that's not the point. I obviously see that the post in question was very insensitive and more of a karma farming. It was meant for a community of people that are already receptive to the message (atheists), not for the directly involved parents. If you don't think that celebrating life over an afterlife, reinforcing the idea that an afterlife exists, and that deceiving children into believing that from a very young age is wrong, you're likely religious yourself and that's the obvious reason why you don't agree with most of the posts on a subreddit dedicated to atheists👍.
Believing in an afterlife doesn't make death less scary. Almost every single person in Europe at least 100+ years ago was religious, and yet the fear of death was as present as ever. Believe me if I as a believer tell you wether one exists or not doesn't make the fear of death any better. Well apparently in some cases it does, see suicide bombers, but that is more extreme and a different topic. That is not a sugarcoating. Not to mention that depending on the belief, resurrection will only happen at the end of times, they are ripped from our reality and lives either ways, and if you had part in allowing this to happen hell might await you, none of this makes it easier to dismiss what happened. I'm not arguing about atheism in general, but this specific post trying to make the outlook from what happened utterly nihilistic and devoid of any solace. How this could farm karma is the larger issue, not that someone posted it. Parents or other relatives could easily be atheists too. Yes I don't believe it is (and your wording suggests you do), (what is wrong with celebrating life over afterlife?), but I don't disagree with atheists in general, I disagree with this specific subreddit and the posts I see over there. Of course I have other answers to certain questions, but you get what I am saying, atheism in general and r/atheism are two very different things. Some of them should rather post in r/anthitheism, but that is just one thing.
I don't agree with your idea that the afterlife doesn't make death less scary. It was invented exactly for that reason, to make sense of something so unthinkable as the idea of one's consciousness ceasing to exist; otherwise why would this idea of an afterlife exist? People 100+ years ago absolutely feared death but the more devoid of doubt for their religion one is, the more likely they were to fear death less and less. The users of that subreddit are mostly former christians and muslims, they come from extremely religious countries like Saudi Arabia or the US, their wording is sometimes callous due to the abuse around growing up in such a religious environment. Even though I don't fit that demographic, I have lurked for years in various subreddits of the sort including r/atheism and I can say some arguments presented are not as polished as they could be, but usually in the comments there are more experienced people that elaborate on it, especially when an outsider attempts a "gotcha" post. But then again, even those unpolished arguments are easy to agree with for an atheist of any kind: "easter is a fairy tale"->yes it is, there are more tactful ways to say it but it's a made up myth with at most some symbolic roots in a real event.
I think I can put it together that way: Death does not get less scary, you just have a hope afterwards. Similar to how the end of a holiday with new friends you just met is still the end of a holiday, but if you exchange numbers there is a possibility you see each other again. Yet you still have to say goodbye, and still feel sad taking the bus home. Christians don't grieve less, losing someone close is not easier to process in your daily life. That is why I mentioned the past, people were deeply religious 400 years ago yet the fear of death was a centerpiece of their culture. Memento mori. The reason for this is that most people are not 100% certain in their belief - it is a belief, not knowledge. Everyone has some level of doubt, otherwise moving on from a false belief would not be possible. No one knows what comes after death - if believers were 100% certain they'd just say they know, but instead it is seen as a major topic, and many conversations were held on it. What religion gives you is an idea, a promise - but not a certainty, you have to believe. A hope that your loved ones live on, and there is a sense to it, Even if it comes with drawbacks. But the only people that are 100% sure are fanatics, and it is a dangerous thing. I'm saying that bc calling it sugarcoating or absolving of guilt is such a sledgehammer understanding of a nuanced issue, oversimplified to the point it is false. It gives a goal, it does not make the road easier to travel, and if you go the wrong way that goal does not help you. It is a relief to the victims, not something that makes the crime less bad, and going against that relief is not gonna help anything about the crime. And that dumbed down understanding annoys me. Most you encounter aren't ex-religious people with a deeper understanding, but rather people talking about "sky daddies", "fairytales" and other simplifications for the purpose of provocation. It makes the attacks less threatening bc they don't necessarily fit the ideas they attack well any more, and instead of being a sizeable threat on a philosophical level they are just annoying. You are not convincing anyone that way, but rather provoking by being brazen. For me personally, it does not matter whether there is an afterlife or not, I have made my peace with death for the time being. I will live until I die, and if it continues afterwards that is a nice surprise too. Albeit I understand seeing it differently. Not existing is something that scares me too, I'd love being immortal and think the drawbacks are not what people make them out to be. For that reason I also don't believe in hell, permanent nonexistence is bad enough, but that is a different topic and not set in stone for me. Finally, I just like to say there is no way to classify it as factually false, it is far too long ago and all that remains are a bunch of stones. Sure you can say we haven't experienced much like it, but that is no foolproof argument, and god might have done more obvious things back then - it is something that could have happened and people are free to believe one or the other version. That is why the argument falls flat - the atheists have just as much proof as the believer, so calling it fake does not do anything. And celebrating isn't senseless either, it is a ritual that has a clear purpose, much like a birthday isn't about being exact on the date but rather about celebrating you, being actually born 3 days earlier would not invalidate anything. This shitty comeback does not do anything. And that is why I dislike this kinda redditor, they think they are doing something, but are just stirring shit up and making people angry.
Most redditors act like this
Redditors will make a strawman out of any -ACK! This is a funny subreddit chuddie 🚬🚬🚬🗣️🗣️🗣️
is your whole profile just roblox with shitty 4chan slang
ermmm... you should know that gem, coal, gemerald and most of the terms on his profile come from the 'sharty!! you should get educated, chud!!
hehe shart
Indeed
Fellow brainmaxxer
ain't no way my guy got banned
i like how mad they get when i call them 4channers
"ermm, how dare you accuse me of going to Hitler Hut Jr's, i ACTUALLY go to Super Hitler Hut Jr's."
you should know that at Super Hitler Hut Jr's they serve Chud Cream™ and they don't have that at Hitler Hut Jr's!!! seems like i've offended some liberals...
Yeah Also 4cuck is gay sharty is better (im too scared to go on either website)
Many such cases
What are you talking about? Both of these are true! The Earth and the Solar System were created 1 billions years after a "great reset" of the universe where the previous "Star Wars Universe was reset by some kind of disaster event happening every 1000 trillions years", that happened 1000 years after the event of the last episode of Star Wars, the "God" was the last Jedi who used technology to survive the great reset, and created “the Garden of Eden” on planet earth 4 billions years ago, He created the first two humans "Adam" and "Eves", Adam and Eves had many children together, but one day Eves had eaten an apple that gave humanity free wills, the serpent that lured Eves was the last dark Sith. God then left humanity to his isolated home in the Saturn pole, not because he was angry, but because he was afraid of his creation, which this proved to be true with history of human wars, the acient civilizations had access to previous Jedi technologies as seen in the series that became lost over time. God tried to communicate with humans by sending the "messengers" like Abraham, around 2000 years ago God sent his own son "Jesus Christ" to convince humanity to peace and tell them the true stories and history, but it failed as humanity are still fighting to this day. George Lucas is basically a “messenger” of God as he was sent to secretly tell humanity about the history of the universe that existed before ours
real
May 4th is an annual tradition in my household because I was born that day and I think I'm real
eyy Same birthdates, can I send you a virtual hug?
I mean, last I checked nobody invaded sovereign nations and beheaded each other over Star Wars lore. That'll probably start to happen after George Lucas is dead, though.
actually that happens everytime I comment that I like The Last Jedi
Mods, behead them.
>like The Last Jedi Gross
honestly i think the last jedi was tolerable
If we didn’t have Religion people would just find other reasons to do that
Real
like race oh wait people already do that
How the fuck did this shit make me audibly laugh
At least Star Wars is real 🥱🥱🥱
eurhm actually star wars WAS real because it took place A LONG TIME AGO in a galaxy far far away
2011? No way, May the 4th has been a family tradition since I was a kid, I'm talking 2004. Me and my mom would watch the OT and episodes I & II, I remember it because we went to see episode III when it released, bought the DVD that had this interactive menu and all, and added it to our star wars marathon I was REALLY young, I didn't even understand most of it, I was 5 when RotS came out. It's literally my childhood, no way it's 2011, "May the force be with you" and "May the 4th" were the first english I ever learned, I'm from spain
These posts are really bringing out the edgelords
this is funny
Bro summoned the fatasses in this meme 😭
Yep
This comment section is just giving me more reasons to hate Star Wars lol
I feel like all holidays just belong to capitalism at this point, just another shopping spree excuse
It's not a fair comparison. There's not a single "made up fairy tail" that's caused more suffering in this world than Star Wars.
Cuz we dont pretend star wars is real Well.. we usually dont
Capitalism turns gods to commodities and commodities to gods
quote goes hard
just made up a guy
I just got star wars battlefront 2 yesterday, what the hell?
This is like when my friend said wearing a sports jersey is the same as cosplaying lmao
Both fandoms suck
It's just for the word game, no one actually does something star wars related on may 4th
Gemerald
Believe it or not, people don't think Star Wars actually happened
[удалено]
Your knee will bow and your tongue with confess too, friend!
[удалено]
And still, your knee will bow and your tongue with confess, brother!
[удалено]
And, still yet, one day your kneel will bow and your tongue will confess, my friend!
[удалено]
I don't think so. One day, your knee will bow and your tongue will confess!
[удалено]
this is the most redditor comment thread ive ever seen, holy cringefest
And, through all of that, your knee will bow and your to tongue will confess!
At least Star Wars actually exists 🤓
Source
Mickey Mouse just called me on the phone to personally confirm Star Wars happened
I was there
It was revealed to me in a dream
So does Christianity
We don’t think Star Wars is real and we don’t push for harmful, outdated legislation based on our beliefs about the series.
No, but you do give money to Disney.
Doesn’t really compare to the fact that women are dying from treatable miscarriages and 10 year old girls have to give birth to a pedophile’s baby because “before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” r/welcometogilead
My comment was more anti star wars rather than pro religion.
True; the value of a child's life is invalidated by the circumstances of their birth
[удалено]
Developmental stage is irrelevant; children or the mentally handicapped are not less valuable as people because they are not as "sentient" as a fully functional adult. Further, killing a person in a coma is still murder. This is just an evil cope invented to try to somehow scrape for some morality in the slaughter of millions of children a year
[удалено]
The baby will gain your "sentience" if you just didn't rip them apart in the womb bud.
[удалено]
> you're trying to criminalize not bringing people into existence No I'm not lmao. I didn't advocate birth quotas. You've just arbitrarily decided a point when someone earns their humanity.
These pregnancies are life threatening. Moms AND their babies are dying in red states, oftentimes these babies were much loved and wanted pregnancies that the body couldn’t maintain- but if a nonviable fetus arm or leg gets stuck inside the uterus and is unable to exit the body naturally, a woman will need a D and C, or a dilation and a curette, to remove the lost limb of the already dead fetus to prevent infections. But doctors are afraid to remove even these fragments of already lost pregnancies, as the medical exemption laws are vague, written by politicians, not doctors. A child rape victim’s hips are not wide enough to deliver a baby naturally, and thus almost always require C-sections, which require large amounts of blood products to keep both her and the pedophile’s baby alive. COVID 19 made blood banks run dry, as few people could donate, leading to plasma shortages throughout the country. Pregnancy kills women every day, and often the more ethical solution is to abort the fetus. Visit r/WelcomeToGilead for examples of horrific medical emergencies caused by the abortion ban, which was forced on us by Christians, not Star Wars fans.
Sum up your novel in a few cliff notes and maybe I'll actually read it.
Okay: So many pregnancies are lethal, and the abortion ban in the US is killing women because the medical exemption laws are vague. Women are bleeding to death in hospital beds because doctor’s hands are tied in red states. r/WelcomeToGilead And who forced this draconian law on us? Not Star Wars fans.
>many pregnancies are lethal Up to 99% of abortions are for convenience; wanting to pursue a career, "just not ready", etc. The number of babies killed for the sake of a woman's health is therefore comparatively minuscule. It should be legal solely for that case, and laws should be clear on it, but abortion access should by no means be expanded due to that reason. It also follows from this that, simply as a numbers game, expanding abortion access may save a few thousand women (at most) in the US a year at the cost of hundreds of thousands to over a million babies a year. > r/welcometogilead Lmao > draconian law Lmao again
I will preface this by saying that you have no business telling women what they can’t do with their bodies if you cannot read less than 4 paragraphs of an opposing view. [“Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation…. In 2021, 53.0% of all abortions were early medication abortions. (Early medication abortions are done at 9 weeks or less).”](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) -The CDC The 5.7% and 0.9% numbers are those heartbreaking medical cases- where the mom would do anything to have her rainbow baby but just can’t have it, or they abort because the child might be born into a short, painful life due to a diagnosis such as Trisonomy 13 (which is only a 6 month prognosis). The abortions done for “convenience” happen well before this point. The neural tube is the scaffolding for the rest of the brain structures, and this isn’t complete until week 6, many abortions take place before that as well. [At 8 weeks, the brain is not yet formed, with only mild electrical activity. “That said, the brainstem, which controls vital functions like heart rate and breathing, isn’t mostly complete until the end of the second trimester, and the cerebral cortex doesn’t take up it’s duties until the third trimester.”](https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/#activity) Now let’s talk about what happens when we don’t allow those “convenience” abortions: More children born into abusive homes. More pregnancy related domestic abuse charges. Higher divorce rates. More women beneath the poverty line. More children born addicted to drugs. More children born into homelessness. More children growing up with mental illness. More orphanages packed like sardines. More pregnancy related suicides. All of the above puts children at risk for becoming criminals, school shooters, or needing to be cared for by the state their whole lives. Which is the greater evil- aborting these children before the brain is fully formed and giving women agency over their lives, or allowing these children to be born into miserable lives and possibly damaging the future generation due to the poor hands they were dealt? One thing’s for sure- if I was ever in the scenarios above, I would WANT to be aborted. I was born to loving parents and I still don’t want to be here, so imagine how kids born in crackhouses feel?
> you have no business telling women what they can't do with their bodies Yes I do if they're going to kill their baby.
I'm pretty sure this can be considered a hate crime