Cred Forums Athiests

>The greatest minds of the world have been atheists

>immigration on the rise
Christians never opposed immigration
>promiscuity on the rise
Modern christians are sluts
>feminism on the rise
Modern christians defend women rights
>divorce on the rise
Modern christians defend divorce
>countries losing their culture
Christians destroyed europe traditional culture and support multiculturalism
>countries losing their tradition
Christians destroyed europe traditional culture and support multiculturalism

>DESPITE CHRISTIANITY BEING UNARGUABLY THE CAUSE OF ALL MODERN CULTURAL MARXISM AND NOTHING MORE THAN A JEWISH TOOL TO CONTROL STUPID GOYS LETS BLAME ALL THIS ON ATHEISM INSTEAD

>I have more respect for cuckold fetishists

Of course you do, that's why you're a christcuck, see

>CHRISTIANITY BEING UNARGUABLY THE CAUSE OF ALL MODERN CULTURAL MARXISM
I honestly pity the mental gymnastics it takes to come to this conclusion

Accept your place Christfags. Christianty is the blue pill personified.

yes, OP, it's you.

You're assuming I'm willing to put the truth behind Christianity's contributions to Western society.

I'm not.

...

Yeah. Atheists are useful idiots for the kikes.

>anti materialism
>pro self improvement
>anti nihilist
>anti hedonist
>anti ego
>encourages humiliity and repentence
>blue pilled

Good goy, keep telling yourself. Remember there's nothing more to life than consumerism. No need to have kids, just keep spending money on our products until you die goy!

says the guy that praises a jew on a stick

>Athiests
>can't even spell right what he's suppoesed to be discussing

...

>God promises eternal life to those who believe in him and hell to those who don't
>He doesn't make it clear he exists by shouting down from heaven the truth or something similarly undeniable

Makes you think

it doesn't matter though. contrary to popular belief, arguments don't validate a point but are merely a crutch for those too scared to face reality directly.

>Free will exists and God wants you to seek him out yourself to develop a personal relationship with him
>he provides undeniable proof to every single person

pick one (it's the first)

>Yeah. Atheists are useful idiots for the kikes.
your holy book literally calls kikes the chosen people

>Literally lying because you got BTFO so hard

Who said anything about being anti-Christian? I just think of it as philosophy for the masses. A good thing for a strong civilization even if I do not believe it myself.

The old testament does, which is what the jews follow.

The new testament says the opposite, which is what christians follow.

Hence Christianity being literally the main antisemitic force for the last 2000 years and the only thing that's limited their influence in Europe. Hence them trying to destroy it right at its inception and ever since

the easiest way to destroy an enemy is to make it an alli

want to convert a jew

tell him the rabbi was actually debating with the devil and he lost
we won't kill you if you follow the path of light
all of the stupid curses and shit are just like meme magic
we've known the truth for quite some time now
your stupid book says we will kill you if you all if you come clean. this is not true.

litteraly all you have to do is make the sign of the cross... eh that would work
but it you make the sign of the sun it will work a lot better. you would have to learn the greatest story never told first.
write on sticky note put on arm or head till you feel better
it works

if you know anyone on the path of light in SA or IS tell them to gtfo soonish
the really evil fucks who rape torture and murder children are both going to say the other one ratted and attack eachother.

saudi royals are kikes, they gave the answer
israel fucksticks are obviously kikes, they verified the answer. both tempt us to join a side we ask both to join the path of light.

idk if we can stop them
you have to be pretty fucked up to hurt a kid
all to cast spoopy spells that aren't close to the power of meme magic
fucking niggers (old dictionary definition means willfully ignorant person) ((that means someone says the answer you need is here and you don't even look to see if it is real or how it works))

Can you prove that the modern day Jews are who the Bible refers to as the chosen?

contrary to your belief, you saying atheism is reality doesn't make it reality any more than me saying Christianity is reality makes it reality. We have to provide arguments

Exodus 19:5
Deuteronomy 7:6-8
Deuteronomy 14:2
Deuteronomy 26:17-19
2 Samuel 7:23-24
1 Kings 8:53
1 Kings 10:9
1 Chronicles 17:20-21
Psalm 105:8-15
Psalm 135:4
Isaiah 41:8
Isaiah 43:1-3
Isaiah 44:21
Jeremiah 31:1-4

And you're a good person for it user. A totally respectable position and someone I'd get a long with great I'm sure.

Just look through this thread to see the type of atheists I was referring to

that's not how reality works. i could start talking about how jesus saved me right now, and my beliefs still wouldn't alter reality.

meanwhile, some beliefs provide a great tool to predict reality.
others, not so much.
and if a belief doesn't help you, why keep it?

>you need to believe in Jewish fairytales to be against usury

This is your """"""""brain""""""""" on religion.

>literally all old testament
>the old testament is literally the jews before Christianity was made

I'm laughing

And your belief in atheism doesn't alter reality. That's my point. Saying something is reality doesn't make it so.

Fedoras are the goodest goyim. Kikes love it when they ignore their Talmud. Kikes hate Christ and serve Satan.

>Christianity is Jewish meme

This is your """"""""""brain""""""""" on jewish tricks

Jews do not follow anything other than the Talmud. The old testament was not matrilineal. Kikes serve Satan.

then why do you keep doing it?
because i didn't :^)

It is the passivity and weakness of Christians that allowed our country to fall and be exploited by the Jew. It is not the atheist community paying for Somalians to be imported to the US. It is not the atheist community who says all people are born equal and require the love of God equally. It is not the atheist community that is calling for billions of dollars to be donated to the filth of the world while we become more and more in debt. It is not the atheist community that goes to foreign countries steeped in war that hate the west only to get themselves killed or taken hostage causing international incidents. It is not the atheist community which calls for acceptance and tolerance of our enemies because they are simply following their religious faith.

Get over yourself.

>amerifat who has only ever listened to john hagee on television and seen his obese pastor tell him to support israel
yeah that's because this country is owned and run by jews you idiot

You're right, I should stop responding to you since you haven't made any kind of argument or contribution besides pointing out a spelling mistake

>Europe is Christian for 2000 years and remains strong and pure
>within the last few decades it becomes rapidly less Christian and things go to shit
>this means it's Christianities fault

get over yourself

>believing secular morality will remain constant and definitely won't lead to the garbage we have today
This is your (((brain))) on Albanian semen

>It is the passivity and weakness of Christians that allowed our country to fall and be exploited by the Jew.

Exactly. It's Christianity that has been keeping those evils at bay. We'd be in a much bigger mess if atheists were our defenders.

>It is not the atheist community paying for Somalians to be imported to the US
it literally is you retard lmfao. It's the university feminist atheist homosex transgenders who are calling for all this

no, feminist atheist homosex transgenders have no income. it's their cis white male hetero conservative christian parents who pay for everything they do.

a fucking leaf

The human genome was mapped by a Christian.

The jews don't follow the old testament.

They follow the Thalmund which pre christ era jews would see as heresy. And it's also butthurt fanfiction.

>Indian intellectuals

...

The only part of our civilization that I care about or identify with is the post enlightenment free thinking scientific part. Basically the part that emasculated Christianity and freed us all from it's repressive chains.

All the things you list as oh nos are harmful to that. Except Christianity. If it ever tries to grow balls again, I will be there to kick them back up into it's throat where they belong.

Who is more amazing? Christ chan or fedora chan?

i thought you wanted to stop replying to me?

>believing in Christian morality that led to the garbage we have today

why

Right Wing politics are concerned with the long-term survival of Civilization

Christianity is only concerned with personal salvation to become part of a nebulous afterlife for which no evidence exists, and for which this world needs to be sacrificed, which is best expressed in the way early christians like Martin of Tours refused to fight enemies of their nations, insofar killing in this world could cost them heaven

When Jesus says "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well", "do not resist evil", "I have come to turn a man against his own household", "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't follow me", "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors", "the meek will inherit the Earth", "those that wanna die will live", "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom", "do not save treasures for tomorrow", "carry your cross so that you can receive eternal reward", "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you'll have treasure in heaven", "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter Heaven", "Woe to you who are well fed, Woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep"...

... he is not kidding, or meaning the opposite, but actually setting down a morality where the world is a lie and only the afterlife is the real deal, so destroying your life in this world, "carrying your cross" as he says, is completely logical

Cred Forums "christians" seem to believe Jesus actually meant the OPPOSITE of all that, and that Jesus wants you to defend your family, that Jesus wants you to kill your enemies, to become prosperous, well-fed and rich in this world, and to avoid persecution and death!

Only a person that does not actually believe in the Heaven bullshit and in eternal rewards for dying a martyr would actually re-interpret Christianity as a cult of earthly power which declares "the strong shall inherit the Earth" and "you must destroy the enemies of your nation"

Maybe read a history book instead of Richard Dawkins.

Nearly all scientist discoveries were done by Christians.

And Christianity got emasculated in the west in the post WW2 era.

>implying the enlightenment would have happened without Christianity
>implying it wasn't because of Christianity

Christians always claim that in arameic languague "turning your cheek" means "not to pick up pointless insults" and other bullshit, it never means what it says, and I always ask: where is the evidence to such absurd claim?

Never mind, you christians say that as if that was the only suicidal demented thing he said

Right after that phrase, he would demand even more extreme things: "if they take your coat, give them your shirt", "if they force you to walk one mile, walk two"

the bizarrely specific re-definition of "Jesus actually didn't mean you to turn your other cheek" bit is something christians can only use to fool people that have not read the whole chapter, and only know of that particular verse

Here soon they will be telling me that "in Arameic culture, letting your servants steal your coat away was considered acceptable."

Jesus never wanted you to deny your own life and carry your own cross no... Christianity is a religion about being strong and rich in the world!

Here we have "christians" that believe that Jesus didn't promise persecution and death for his followers in this earth, but an ever-lasting earthly civilization of riches and power!

The whole "the meek will inherit the Earth", "the strong will fall", "woe to the rich, for they already received their reward...", he was just meming

The whole Apocalypse thing, "the world is my enemy", was a meme as well

Jesus actually wanted you to prosper in the Earth all along, Heaven is a meme too!

Oh look is the idiotic Colonial spouting copy pasta.

So basically, what christians always say: "Jesus meant the opposite of everything he said. Do not resist evil actually means Destroy your enemies, you just don't understand that Jesus ALWAYS means the opposite he says. The meek will inherit the Earth? He means that the STRONG will inherit the Earth! He also meant the opposite there. You just don't get it because you are not enlightened enough to know he always means the opposite. For example... Love and lend to your enemies? It means DESTROY THEM IF THEY DONT SUBMIT!! I am so wise"

post fedora chan, I don't think I've ever seen her desu

> idiotic
> the gypsy can't literally deny any of it

How are you liking America, Aussie bro?

breitbart.com/london/2015/10/05/worlds-first-lesbian-bishop-calls-church-remove-crosses-install-muslim-prayer-space/

> Christian

> in a right-wing board concerned about civilizational survival

> following a religion that makes earthly concerns pointless

> following a religion which promise renders concerns about arabs taking over Europe pointless, insofar the Jewish War God will destroy the World the same

> following a religion which prophecy is that its followers will be oppressed and destroyed before the return of the Jewish War God, making defense of such civilization either pointless or outright anti-divine

> thinking that martyrhood-obsessed early christians, self-flagellating monks, self-castrating cathars, life-denying puritans, apocalypse-obssesed zionists, Jonestown and the current Pope and Churches actually have it wrong, and christian morality actually means the opposite of everything that Jesus said or did.

> thinking that Crusaders were "real christians" even when they pillaged and destroyed christian towns, including Constantinople itself, and were such failures that Turks would occupy the Balkans for 500 years

It took the purging and executions of every Christian monarch to destroy Christian morality through the (((enlightenment))) in order for us to get what we have now. It was only capable through force, not a natural ideological progression.

>I a Fedora in a US Colony in South America know better Christian doctrine than the Christian churches.

> Jesus and the Bible demand you build a family, build a society worthy of Heaven, and go to war when it is necessary.

he fucking didn't

Jesus promised nothing but self-sacrifice and self-denial

His only reference to using a sword in the Gospel is using it against your own fucking family because his insane cult would bring division and strife, as it fucking did, just as Jews designed it to work

30 % of Germany died in the 1500s as Europeans killed each other over demented interpretations of an insane proto-communist prophet

Why are Christcucks on Cred Forums so triggered by atheism ?

>leafs are on the rise
oh no!

Until atheism was legal, nobody claiming not to be Christian should be taken at their word.

Until atheism was not socially stigmatized many claiming to be Christian are lying. See if they go out of their way to proclaim their Christianity or are content to list themselves nominally as Christian.

>tfw Colonial Fedora is so buttmad he is arguing with his own strawmans.

Nope. Lifelong Mainer here.

Look up the adventures of Christ chan.

I like the fact that Aquinas used ISLAMIC philosophy

> the Christian churches

You do know that the Christian Churches agree with my interpretation right?

From the Pope and his "the arabic invasion is a blessing to Europe", to the protestant churches condemning PEGIDA, to the anglical churches demanding more immigration and the orthodox churches calling for closer links with Islam, the Christian Churches are not on your side of the argument

Atheism was never Illegal. Unless catholics went extra silly. Also I love how you claim that you know more about people centuries and their faith when you are in Current Year.

You should actually learn what Christians believe. Turning the other cheek and such passages are about forgiveness and to not seek vengance for petty transgresions.

Jesus himself beat people with ropes and the bible is very clear on protecting yourself from those who would steer you away from God, and insists you kill them or at the very least do not allow them in your home

> Atheism was never illegal

Riiight...

trips of radicalization

>implying atheist was illegal
You didn't read the pic I posted did you. Atheists weren't nearly stigmatized to the degree people like to claim.

Even besides that do you realize the irony
>claiming all the great thinkers of the past were only Christian due to social pressure
>not acknowledging that modern thinkers have social pressure to be atheist

Malaysia please die

>From the Pope and his "the arabic invasion is a blessing to Europe", to the protestant churches condemning PEGIDA, to the anglical churches demanding more immigration and the orthodox churches calling for closer links with Islam, the Christian Churches are not on your side of the argument

No they are not. I don't care about what the Cathocucks and their heresy or what the fuck random protestants say.

My Church the Romanian Orthodox Church doesn't share the BS you are spouting.

Oh look now we got the Malasian Islamic Illiterate Retard.

Like and donate asshole

>>renders concerns about arabs taking over Europe pointless
yeah i'm sure that's why arabs took over europe when it was steadfastly Christian, and not when it's full of atheist homosexual transgender loving somalian importing faggots. that must be why charles martel said to his men to let muslims in to kill his fellow Christians, because that's definitely what the bible says.

Back that claim up then if it was.

It wasn't. Being ignorant to history isn't a very good start to forming opinions user. Read a history book please I beg you. Don't learn history from youtube "philosophers "

No

Ps, I am byzantium

You're taking versus out of contexts and I don't appreciate it.

Butthurt is something they can't seem to pray away.

Ahh u know I am Byzantine

Aquinas used Aristotle philosophy for the most part. Which parts were Islamic?

I agree

I hate CHRISTIANS especially PROTNIGGERS and Orthocuck

>atheist
>must live a life of meaningless hedonism

nice meme OP

christfags are just as cucked as secular leftist cunts

> Turning the other cheek and such passages are about forgiveness and to not seek vengance for petty transgresions.

Someone should have told Paul and Peter then! They were not supposed to submit to their martyrhoods and pray for their enemies in hopes of receiving eternal blessings for rejecting this world...

... actually, they were supposed to forgive if possible, and to DEUS VULT and create a crusader state should that fail!

The whole "carrying your own cross" thing was a misunderstanding, as this wise leaf now explains, Christianity has been wrong for 2000 years!!

>Anti-Christian heresy is a criticism against Christianity

He used an ISLAMIC thinker who perfected Aristotle

Look at me, I am school of Athens now

A-a-a-a... a based leaf?

Constantine saw the sign that would conquer.

What it meant was the advent of Islam and Muslims as the inheritors of his empire

Are ALL Christians this delusional?

> nineoclock.ro/romanian-orthodox-church-first-reaction-to-refugee-crisis/
> The Romanian Orthodox Church is of the opinion that Romanian believers should act with love for their peers, according to the Christian belief and that Europe is not facing an Islamist threat.
> ‘It is easily understood that, when one of our peers is in difficulty, he/she should be helped and supported. I remind you that last year, the Romanian Patriarchy organised a fund rise in all Romanian churches and monasteries in the country and abroad and donated EUR 500,000 to the Patriarchy of Antiochia and the Whole East to help the victims of the bloody conflict in Syria. Naturally, anyone who needs help has to be helped’, said Father Constantin Stoica, spokesman for the Romanian Patriarchy.

>martyrdom is weakness

Martyrdom is a warrior philosphy. Christianity says it's good to die for the benefit of your brothers, and was a driving force behind the crusades .

Why do you think Mary causes salvation

You DO know that Muslims literally all of Southeastern Europe all the way to Vienna when it was steadfastly Christian right?

Catholic France even allied itself with the Ottomans

I honestly am unsure what you're talking about. Could you explain further because I'm interested.

Why do you worship bones

>versus

verse* sorry

Avvores is muslim and teacher of AQUINAS

What is their "real context" then?

That Jesus actually wanted Paul and Peter to yell DEUS VULT and create a crusader kingdom, and they misunderstood that they had to submit to their martyrhood?

Jesus is the road to salvation
I don't I worship God

>Helping other PEERS
>Sending money to Christians in Syria
>Helping them there
>Romania has a muslim population under 1 percent

Are you purposely retarded?

Read the bible. Christians aren't supposed to discuss the word of god.

It's you who are delusional. It was the Greeks and Romans who created our Civilization.
It was when Romans became Christian that it crashed with no survivors.

'Averroism', 'radical Aristotelianism' and 'heterodox Aristotelianism' are nineteenth- and twentieth-century labels for a late thirteenth-century movement among Parisian philosophers whose views were not easily reconcilable with Christian doctrine. The three most important points of difference were the individual immortality of human intellectual souls, the attainability of happiness in this life and the eternity of the world. An 'Averroist' or 'Radical Aristotelian' would hold that philosophy leads to the conclusions that there is only one intellect shared by all humans, that happiness is attainable in earthly life and that the world has no temporal beginning or end. Averroists have generally been credited with a 'theory of double truth', according to which there is an irreconcilable clash between truths of faith and truths arrived at by means of reason. Averroism has often been assigned the role of a dangerous line of thought, against which Thomas Aquinas opposed his synthesis of faith and reason. The term 'Averroism' is also used more broadly to characterize Western thought from the thirteenth through sixteenth centuries which was influenced by Averroes, and/or some philosophers' self-proclaimed allegiance to Averroes.

Why you worship her and bones?

Who? I can't even find a wikipedia page.

> Martyrdom is a warrior philosphy

Well then, that sure would have been a surprise to all the Christians from Paul and Peter to Martin of Tours!

Silly them!! The whole "letting the romans martyr you while praying for them" was wrong, the Kingdom of Jesus WAS of this world after all!

> Christianity says it's good to die for the benefit of your brothers, and was a driving force behind the crusades .

You do know that the Crusaders literally sacked Christian Constantinople and ultimately failed at anything else right?

Averroes, the twelfth-century Muslim commentator on Aristotle, exercised a strong influence on Latin scholastics from about 1230 onwards (see Ibn Rushd). Around 1270, the derogatory term Averroistae ([too ardent] followers of Averroes) began to be used, principally to characterize adherents of the view that there is only one shared human intellect. In 1277 the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, accused unnamed masters of arts of the University of Paris of paying more attention to heathen philosophers than to Christian revelation, and of behaving as if there were two truths, one of philosophy and another of faith. The theory of one shared intellect was among the 219 theses the bishop condemned. A generation later, Ramon Llull launched a series of attacks on university philosophers whom he saw as continuators of the lines of thought condemned in 1277, and used the term Averroistae to describe these philosophers.

Let's kick the atheifags out and start a real debate for grown adults:
Orthodox Christianity is the real redpill. Catheretics and Protestfags can't compete.

That must be why the Byzantine empire existed for another thousand years, because they rejected Christianity entirely.

Avorees

> Christians aren't supposed to discuss the word of god.

Someone tell Paul then! The whole of Acts and the Epistles are wrong

I am Byzantine

Why don't you do something better with your life than posting anti-christian things on Cred Forums every single day.

literally cannot find a single bit of info on whoever this is

>ITT: people forgetting Christianity was created by jews
ayylmao pt. 2: Electric Jewgaloo

>letting the romans martyr you while praying for them" was wrong,
where did I imply that?

I am
Scjool of Athens and scholasticism

Averroes, the twelfth-century Muslim commentator on Aristotle, exercised a strong influence on Latin scholastics from about 1230 onwards (see Ibn Rushd). Around 1270, the derogatory term Averroistae ([too ardent] followers of Averroes) began to be used, principally to characterize adherents of the view that there is only one shared human intellect. In 1277 the Bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, accused unnamed masters of arts of the University of Paris of paying more attention to heathen philosophers than to Christian revelation, and of behaving as if there were two truths, one of philosophy and another of faith. The theory of one shared intellect was among the 219 theses the bishop condemned. A generation later, Ramon Llull launched a series of attacks on university philosophers whom he saw as continuators of the lines of thought condemned in 1277, and used the term Averroistae to describe these philosophers.

ITP: A literal retard who doesn't know what Christianity is

>Christians want to take in refugees so they can be good Samaritans.
>Christians want to unite the world under one belief system.
>Christians are the most ardent defenders of Israel
>Christianity is based entirely around a cuckold relationship.
And don't forget to let more and more blacks and hispanics into your countries. Remember, they have more believers among them.

>Malaysia

All non-whites need not apply for heaven.

Based on this medieval use of Averroistae, the term 'Averroism' was introduced in nineteenth-century historiography of philosophy. Averroism was conceived of as a movement of thirteenth-century thinkers faithful to Averroes, proclaiming that the same proposition could have different truth values in philosophy and theology, so that there was an unbridgeable inconsistency between philosophy and faith. Averroism was cast as a sinister force (a precursor of modern atheism), valiantly combatted by Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, notably in the latter's De unitate intellectus (On the Unicity of Intellect) and De aeternitate mundi (On the Eternity of the World). Twentieth-century historiography came to identify three main currents in late thirteenth century philosophy: first, Augustinianism, mainly represented by Franciscan thinkers, which combatted the growing influence of Aristotelian philosophy (see Augustinianism); second, Averroism, which took a radically Aristotelian approach to philosophical problems, even though this must lead to conflict with Christian faith; and third, the current led by Albert the Great and Aquinas, who produced a synthesis of Aristotle and Christian faith (see Aristotelianism, medieval)

You worship JESUS

He is only human

Existed for 1000 years, in a state of constant decline

even if you were to argue that Christianity didn't end Rome, it completely failed in rescuing it from collapse, because that is not what Christianity is about: earthly concerns like the survival or not of a civilizations are not christian

I mean really, Saint Augustine literally wrote a book about that (the City of God) during the period, explaining very clearly that christians, having already a homeland in the afterland, didn't have any skin in the civilizational game

The Byzantines didn't survive because "Christianity", they survived because the invaders were not interested in crossing the balkans

As soon as Islam rose in 600s, the Eastern Empire started to bleed land, and within 400 years it was just a rump state

So, the Byzantines were collapsing too, the only difference is that their collapse lasted longer because barbarians were too busy occupying Rome

But it literally ceased to exist in 1204, when it was split among latin state clients during the sack

And by that time byzantine syria was a thing of the past

The "new empire" that lasted for 200 years was literally Constantinople and a few cities, a vassal of the empires of the east, until it was finally occupied

Early in the twentieth century, it was commonly assumed by historians that almost all the 219 theses condemned in 1277 were of Averroist provenance, and since there is medieval evidence that the main targets of the condemnation were Boethius of Dacia and Siger of Brabant, they were thought to have embraced most of the 'heterodox' opinions. Siger, who is known to have engaged in university politics, began to be seen as the leader of an Averroist party at the University of Paris in the 1260s and 1270

How is letting your enemies kill you a "warrior philosophy"?

You need to learn the difference between Christians and Catheretics, Protestfags, Mor(m)ons and other sects and cults of the US and western Europe.

Subsequent research has undermined the foundations for the historiographical scheme in which a thirteenth-century 'Averroism' belongs. First, the majority of the theses condemned in 1277 were not inspired by Averroes. Moreover, scholars often apply the label 'Averroist' also to later philosophers who were influenced by Averroes or continued the views of writers such as Siger of Brabant: examples include the Parisian masters Ferrandus Hispanus in the late thirteenth century and John of Jandun in the early fourteenth century, and to a long list of Italian writers from Gentile da Cingoli in the 1290s and Angelo d'Arrezzo in the early fourteenth century to Agustino Nifo in the early sixteenth century. Some of these writers did indeed defend Averroes' views whenever possible, but such loyalty towards Averroes had not been a characteristic of the men who were condemned in 1277.

Christianty was the gap between Roman and Current. You cannot take out 2000 years of history and ignore it's significance, especially when it's directly responsible for so much of our society and invented universities and contributed so much to science

When these facts became apparent to historians of philosophy, they began to replace 'Averroism' with 'radical Aristotelianism' or 'heterodox Aristotelianism' as the name of this supposed thirteenth-century school of thought. However, so many historical misunderstandings and ideologically motivated judgments cling to all these labels that they are, in the 1990s, being abandoned. Yet, there are some interesting problems that these labels were meant to help explain, and which still have an important place in medieval philosophy.

In the later half of the thirteenth century, there was a common conviction that some philosophical tenets were inconsistent with Christian doctrine as standardly understood. 'Philosophical' in this connection means Aristotelian on the then standard interpretation of Aristotle, which leaned heavily on Arabic works including the writings of Avicenna and Averroes, and the Liber de causis (see Aristotelianism, medieval; Liber de causis).

Three issues stood in the foreground in the conflict between reason and faith: first, whether all humans share a common intellect (monopsychism); second, whether happiness is attainable in this life; and third, whether the world had a temporal beginning.

praying for your enemies and letting your enemies kill you is not the same thing. Praying for your enemies as you fight them is an exercise in humility and good for the soul

The samurai had similar concepts in bushido

Monopsychism: It was generally accepted that the intellect (that is, the intellective soul) has both an active component, 'the agent intellect', which forms universal concepts on the basis of particular pieces of information provided by the senses, and a passive component, usually called the 'possible intellect', which is the initially blank wax tablet on which the active component leaves its imprints in the form of concepts and knowledge acquired. The question was, are the agent and possible intellects genuinely different, and if not, does each human being have its own intellect, or is there only one for all to share?

I was interested in what you had to say for a bit but you're just spamming now dude I have to filter you

There was a tradition of considering only the agent intellect to be an extra-human separate substance, responsible for humans' shared conceptual apparatus; in this view, the individuality of each person's possible intellect explains why we do not share all our thoughts. One version of this view was held by Roger Bacon. By the 1260s, however, this radical separation of the agent and possible intellects had become rather old-fashioned. The main disputants of the time agreed that the two intellects are one substance, but they disagreed about whether that substance is extra-human. Averroes, as he was commonly understood after about 1250, taught that the intellect is a single impersonal substance with which individual souls enter into contact via their mental representations (phantasms) of extramental things; the intellect uses the phantasms as a basis for abstraction. Modern historiography has applied the term 'monopsychism' to this doctrine, which was attacked by Aquinas in his De unitate intellectus.

Kys I am scholastic

this thread is hereby ruined

Monopsychism allows for the irrational part of a human soul to be destroyed on death without this affecting the intellect. Like the old assumption of a separate agent intellect, it also accounts for the ability of human beings to share knowledge; but it offers no convincing answer to the objection that if this is the case, then no thought belongs to one individual rather than another. During at least one phase of his career, Siger of Brabant accepted monopsychism, but believed that it was possible to save some private thought for the individual by making the operation of the intellect in a particular human depend on representations (intentiones imaginatae) with an origin in sensation unaided by intellect. In his somewhat obscure attempts to explain how the individual 'plugs into' (continuatur) the supra-individual intellect, Siger relied heavil

I am BYZANTIUM

Contemporaries were alert to the Averroistic theory's inability to explain how all humans can share an intellect without sharing all thoughts. However, to medieval thinkers the gravest objection against monopsychism was that it left no individual rational soul to carry responsibility for a deceased person's acts. Nor was it easy to see how an immaterial intellect could fail to be eternal, which was contrary to Christian doctrine that God creates new souls every day and that they are in principle perishable (God could annihilate a soul if he wished). Nonetheless, for the next couple of centuries most philosophers seem to have held that monopsychism was one of the few rationally defensible views about the nature of the intellect, while standard Church doctrine continued to require the intellect to be both the form of the body and capable of separate, individual, existence. The issue was still very much alive in 1513 when the Fifth Lateran Council explicitly condemned the view that the intellective soul is either mortal or only one for all people, and explicitly asserted that it is the form of the human body, immortal, and as many in number as are the bodies into which it is infused.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

They were few in number - because they kept well hidden. There is no reason to become an atheistic martyr - to die for no God.

However heresy and saying things that conflicted with the story the Christians were telling has many historical examples.

inquiriesjournal.com/articles/533/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

Certain men of science have been willing to suffer for their ideas sufficient to leave a trace.

Usually it has been heretics who believed in Christianity who have actually been punished.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno is one.

Happiness in this life: Around 1260-70, masters from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Paris often expressed a great optimism about the attainability of happiness in this life. Their views strongly resemble those of ancient Neoplatonism, but the strongest impetus came from Arabic philosophy rather than directly from ancient sources (see Neoplatonism; Neoplatonism in Islamic philosophy). The way to happiness was thought to consist in an intellectual ascent to the contemplation of ever higher beings, culminating in contemplation of the First Cause and the (temporary) union of one's possible intellect with the source of intellectual understanding, the agent intellect; In this tradition, the agent intellect was thought to be a separate substance and not identical with God. Such a state of intellectual bliss was held to be the fullest actualization of a person qua human, that is, a rational being.

>YES FINALLY FUCKING CHRISTFAGS LET'S GET RID OF THAT STUPID ANTISEMETIC GARBAGE THAT CREATED OUR CIVILIZATION
No.

>See: Ancient Rome, Greece, China, and other pre-Christian civilizations

A based leaf...

> Praying for your enemies as you fight them

You mean that Paul and Peter died fighting Romans?

that is news to me and to the church! someone tells them!

>state of constant decline
>who is justinian
>what is renovatio imperii

This line of thought would seem to permit the construction of a naturalistic ethics with no need for either divine revelation or an individual life after death in order that human beings may reach their ultimate goal and happiness. Boethius of Dacia did indeed hold that a natural philosopher must deny the resurrection of the dead, and this was to be a common view for a long time. However, there is little evidence that anyone really wanted to abolish the belief in a second life. The philosophers' point was simply that while it is known through revelation that supranaturally there will be such a life, a claim to that effect cannot be incorporated into a consistent theory of nature (see Natural philosophy, medieval).

>(((wikipedia)))

You're right, they are very few in number.
>because
this because means you're now basing an opinion on non numbers.

Eternity of the world: Before the 1260s there had been some attempts to interpret Aristotle as if he accepted a temporal beginning of the world. Perhaps the first such attempt was made by William of Conches in the twelfth century. However, as Robert Grosseteste noted in the 1230s, such attempts had failed and the common assumption became that Aristotelian philosophy did in fact require the world to have existed for an unlimited time, partly because creation out of nothing could not be subsumed under any of the Aristotelian modes of change. Change implies the prior existence of something to be the subject of change, and so creation cannot be a species of change. By the 1270s, it was commonly recognized that the concept of creation out of nothing was consistent if not confused with change, but it also became a common conviction that this would wreak havoc on the natural sciences if incorporated among their concepts. The supposed Averroists were thought to have simply denied the temporal beginning of the world (see Eternity of the world, medieval views of).

Christianity: A cult that didn't start to convert non-jews until Paul had that idea

But it wasn't jew-created I swear!

Double truth: Averroists have been credited with a theory of double truth, occasioned by the fact that when medieval thinkers saw a conflict between philosophy (science) and the teaching of the church, they could not simply reject Church doctrine. Instead, they could hold that philosophers had misinterpreted some of the information obtained by natural means (as Aquinas held, for example), or they could hold that there was no way to detect any error in the derivation of the philosophical thesis, so that the only way out of the impasse consisted in rejecting the thesis on the authority of faith (as did Siger). Alternatively, they could try to explain how the assumption of a first cause makes it reasonable to expect that there are truths which no scientific theory can possibly account for; Boethius of Dacia, who distinguished the conditional truth of a scientific theorem from absolute truth, took that line. A fourth way, asserting that the same proposition can be absolutely true philosophically and also absolutely true theologically, had very few followers, if any at all, but has sometimes been imputed to the 'Averroists'.

>paul and peter were warriors

they did fight the Romans in their own way by spreading the word despite it being illegal and them being sentenced to death for it

To understand how this misconception should arise, one should remember that most philosophers of the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries were masters of arts; it was their job to teach a non-Christian (Aristotelian) philosophy in a Christian society, and so they were caught in the contradiction between reason and faith. Guidelines on how to deal with this dilemma were given in a decision by the Faculty of Arts at Paris in 1272: henceforward, any master dealing with a problem that touched both philosophy and faith was bound by oath to solve it a way that was not contrary to faith. The result was a widespread use of the technique of first providing a philosophical solution and then adding one 'according to the truth of faith'. For some twentieth-century scholars use of this technique has sufficed to stamp a philosopher as an adherent of a theory of double truth.

>those 2000 years inbetween where the philosphy was expanded on and the university system was created and our entire civilization was built don't count

The Arabs took on the mantle of late antique philosophy and passed it on to both Latin scholars and Jewish scholars in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. The debates among Islamic scholars between rationalism and fideism also provided texts and models for Christian and Jewish debates. In this assimilation of Islamic thought, several stages can be observed. First, there was an interest in Neoplatonic cosmology and psychology in the latter half of the twelfth century, which fostered the translation of texts by al-Kindi, al-Farabi, the Ikhwan al-Safa' and, especially, Avicenna (Ibn Sina). Second, the desire to understand Aristotle's philosophy resulted in the translation of the commentaries and epitomes of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. Jewish scholars participated in both these movements, and from the second quarter of the thirteenth century they took the initiative in translating and commenting upon Arabic texts. Thus when, in the late fifteenth century, a renewed interest in the ancient texts led scholars to search out the most accurate interpretations of these texts, it was to Jewish scholars that they turned for new translations or retranslations of Avicenna and, in particular, Averroes. From the early sixteenth century, Arabic philosophical texts were again translated directly into Latin, Arabic speakers began to collaborate with Christian scholars and the foundations for the teaching of Arabic were being laid. With the establishment of Arabic chairs in European universities, the rich variety of Islamic thought began to be revealed. This process has lasted until the present day.

...

Some seventy works were translated from Arabic by Gerard of Cremona, nicknamed 'the Master' (dictus magister), at the cathedral of Toledo. These included Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Physics, On Generation and Corruption and Meteorology I-III (see Aristotle), as well as four short tracts on natural science by Alexander of Aphrodisias. To these originally Greek works, Gerard added four philosophical letters of al-Kindi, a letter on proof by the Ikhwan al-Safa' and al-Farabi's Kitab ihsa' al-'ulum (On the Classification of the Sciences) (see al-Farabi).

>loves everyone equally
>gives people different standards of evidence when their entire existence is on the line

Either an asshole or nonexistent. I don't actually mind Christianity, in fact I think it's the best solution to degeneracy right now, but this is just logically inconsistent.

>Is a slav
>un ironically national soc?
If so you're retarded

I am school of Athens and Lyceum

>literally the opposite of everything jews teach
>literal immediately attacked by jews
>literally hunted and attacked by jews every second since
>but it's jewish, I swear!

Also at this time, the importance of the al-Shifa' (Healing) of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was brought to the notice of Archbishop John of Toledo by a Jewish scholar called 'Avendauth' (perhaps the same as Abraham Ibn Daud, the author of al-'Aqida al-rafi'a (The Exalted Faith)). Portions of the text, including those on universals, physics (in part), the soul and metaphysics, were translated by Avendauth, Dominicus Gundissalinus (an archdeacon in the cathedral, fl. 1161-81) and a certain 'magister John of Spain'. Members of this team also translated Algazel's Maqasid al-falasifa (The Aims of the Philosophers) (the first part of a two-part work, the second part being Tahafut al-falasifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers)) (see al-Ghazali); the Mekor Hayyim (Fountain of Life) of the Jewish philosopher Ibn Gabirol, translated into Latin as Fons vitae; and the Liber de causis, a cento of propositions from the Elements of Theology of Proclus, assembled in Arabic (see Liber de causis). Unattributed are translations of On the Rise of the Sciences (said in the Latin version to be by al-Farabi), and a compendium of sixteen questions on Aristotle's On the Heavens made by Hunayn ibn Ishaq and added to the selections from the al-Shifa' in the Latin tradition (Collectiones expositionum ab antiquis grecis in libro Aristotelis De mundo qui dicitur liber caeli et mundi).

Many of these works have a distinctly Neoplatonic tone, which is reflected in the original works of Gundissalinus and the anonymous author of the Liber de causis primis et secundis et... qui consequitur eas (Book of the First and Second Causes and... Which Follows Them), who joins Avicenna to the radically Neoplatonic John Scottus Eriugena. Some of these works were being read in the late twelfth century at Oxford University, amongst whose scholars was, in all probability, the translator Alfred of Shareshill (responsible for the translation from Arabic of Nicholas of Damascus' De plantis and the sections from al-Shifa' on mineralogy, on inundations and, perhaps, on botany) whose commentaries influenced the style of philosophical teaching in the embryonic university (see Translators §3).

Yeah, an empire so "renewed" that it got its shit pushed out of Italy by lombardian pagans

>leaf
>ignored

Besides memes do you have some real arguments and backing?

maybe the greatest minds in India. Everyone would become atheist if their alternative were to worship cows.

The translation of al-Shifa' continued in the thirteenth century: Aristotle's Zoology was translated by Michael Scot, and the Physics (starting from the point where the earlier translation left off), On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, On Actions and Passions, Meteorology and perhaps the Botany were translated by Juan Gonsalvez de Burgos and a Jew called Salomon for Gonsalvez García de Gudiel, Bishop of Burgos (1275-80), apparently from a single manuscript deposited in Toledo cathedral.

>tells you exactly how to be saved
>people actively choose not to follow it so he lets them

This is the logical result of free will. If he did not allow you to choose not to be saved then there would be no free will.

However, with the exception of the Zoology, these translations were hardly read. Rather, a new climate in which Aristotle's texts were on the one hand being accepted as the foundation for the arts curricula in the newly-founded universities, but on the other hand appeared to present some views dangerous to Christianity, made the interpretative works of Averroes (see Ibn Rushd) particularly relevant (see Aristotelianism, medieval). Many of the latter's commentaries on Aristotle's texts were translated. Michael Scot (d. before 1236), who moved from Toledo to the court of Frederick II in Sicily, translated Averroes' 'large commentaries' on the On the Heavens and probably those on the On the Soul, Physics and Metaphysics and others as well. Theodore of Antioch, the court philosopher, translated Averroes' Proemium to the Physics, and William of Luna, perhaps another member of Frederick II's circle, translated the 'middle commentaries' on the Isagog of Porphyry, and on Aristotle's Categories and De interpretatione.

>literal immediately attacked by jews
>literally hunted and attacked by jews every second since

Have you ever read Acts?

If your theory is true, then why isn't Paul suffering assassination attempts every single time he enters a synanogue to preach about how Christianity is the completion of Judaism?

Hermann the German (see Translators §3) translated the 'middle commentaries' on the Rhetoric (partial, together with excerpts on rhetoric from al-Shifa' and by al-Farabi), Poetics (in 1256) and Nicomachean Ethics (in 1240) in Toledo, but may also have been patronized by Frederick II's son Manfred, if he is the same as the 'translator Manfredi' mentioned by Roger Bacon (Opus tertium, cap. 25). Hermann's translation of Averroes' 'middle commentary' on the Poetics was the only form in which Aristotle's Poetics was known to Latin readers in the Middle Ages: William of Moerbeke made a Greek-Latin translation in 1278, but this was lost until the 1930s. The letter of Manfred to the philosophers of Paris, accompanying translations of 'Aristotle and other philosophers from Greek and Arabic', indicates one route by which these texts may have been transmitted, although the 'large commentaries' on On the Soul, Physics and Metaphysics were already known in Paris and Oxford in the late 1220s.

Keeping people silent through threat of force puts the onus on your side of the argument to prove otherwise. It is well known that the Church was a violent monster to those who disagreed with it. If you want to prove that past people were guilty of being Christians in the face of such a monster, you need more proof than their mere cowed silence.

It seems you have to much poo in your brain

The fact that only authors whose writings have been translated from Arabic are included amongst the philosophers whose errors are listed by Giles of Rome - who mentions Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna, Algazel, al-Kindi and Maimonides - gives some idea of the extent of the penetration of these texts. The margins of manuscripts of Aristotle's works on natural science from Oxford University in the same period, which are crammed with citations from Averroes' commentaries, also testify to this penetration.

Are you this retarded? They literally arrested and killed him for forsaking the jewish teachings

The Arabic contribution to the Latin rationalist-fideist controversy began with the translation of Algazel's introduction to his double volume Maqasid al-falasifa and Tahafut al-falasifa by Gundissalinus' circle (see al-Ghazali). This introduction only survives in one manuscript, but was known to Roger Bacon. Maimonides' Dalalat al-ha'irin (Guide to the Perplexed), originally written in Arabic (see Maimonides), which was read by and was most likely translated in the circle of Frederick II, provided material for the debate; both Algazel's work and Averroes' Tahafut al-tahafut (Incoherence of the Incoherence), along with other texts, were used in the Arabic original by the Franciscan Ramón Llull, and in the polemical work Pugio fidei (The Dagger of Faith), written in 1278 by the Dominican Ramón Martí. The doctrines of the Mu'tazila and Ash'ariyya, and especially the dialectical theologians (mutakallimun) were reported in the Dalahat al-ha'irin and the Tahafut al-tahafut, and Averroes' 'large commentary' on the Physics included the ideas of Ibn Bajja as well as of the Greek philosophers Themistius, Alexander of Aphrodisias and John Philoponus.

Religion is for stupid fucks that refuse to learn (or don't have the intellectual ability) to learn about physics and chemistry.

Christfags are by far the biggest idiots who REFUSE to admit they don't understand the concept of the burden of proof or skepticism. So they throw fits like the man brats they are by insulting people of higher intellect on an anonymous imageboard.

They don't even know the 4 beasts of revelation are based on solar positioning and their ENTIRE story is a plagerism of Sumerian Solar worship.

Ditch religion, it's poison.

>It is well known that the Church was a violent monster to those who disagreed with it.
No it's not. Maybe on reddit and in circles of fedoras who repeat it so much they started believing it, but historically this is not true,

KEEP GOING M8

the edict promoted by Llull at the Church Council of Vienne in 1312, calling for chairs in Arabic to be set up in four universities and the Papal curia, had been put into effect, Arabic studies in Europe might have had a different history. As it is, the teaching of Arabic in the Dominican mission schools and the use of newly-translated Arabic philosophical works by Dominican preachers against the Cathar heresy may have contributed to the interest in Arabic authorities shown by the Dominican masters, Albert Magnus (see Albert the Great) and Thomas Aquinas.

Wait... you have arguments and backing?

You mean that Paul wasn't the one that claimed that Jesus had sent him to introduce gentiles to his cult, so much that the Jews of Asia complained about him bringing gentiles to the temple?

Holy shit, someone call the historians, Acts will have to be rewritten?

Fedora chan does not exist just like their belief

And BYZANTIUM is me

...

In [re]discovering and spreading the concept of the meme, Richard Dawkins unleashed a virus – both literally and figuratively.

I find it somewhat ironic that Dawkins, de facto leader of most atheists, of all people, will be ultimately responsible for leading people back to their divine roots. However, this doesn’t come as a complete surprise to me; it’s just more proof of the counterintuitive and paradoxical nature of nature.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

You do know I am talking about Paul right, the one christians claim was beheaded by romans themselves?

Much of the work which has taken place on Islamic philosophy until quite recently was based upon the idea that it more-or-less came to an end with the death of Averroes (ibn Rushd) in the twelfth century AD, and is interesting chiefly because of its effect upon the development of philosophy and science in medieval Christian Europe. This rather orientalist account of Islamic philosophy is challenged in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Islamic philosophy is treated as an important and living tradition of philosophy. It represents today, as in the past, the philosophical thought of the Islamic community. Although it is true that much of that thought has had an important impact upon intellectual developments outside the Islamic world, it would be wrong to see that as the main contribution of Islamic philosophy.

Muslims quite naturally seek to understand the nature of reality using the formal procedures of philosophy, and they often wish to see how they can encapsulate that reality using both philosophy and the various bases of religious authority in Islam.

As one would expect, there is not just one school of thought here, but a very diverse community of thinkers who vary both in their particular Islamic background and in their adherence to particular philosophical approaches. In devoting 56 entries to representing the variety of Islamic philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy acknowledges its significance. Muslims will find that a wide range of their coreligionists’ thought is described and discussed here, and they will see the important role that Islamic philosophy has in the development of world philosophy.

All that memeing. My god you are trying hard.

>atheism is heresy

replacement theology

This is exactly what I'm talking about. No argument, just ad homenim.

Neitszche > Gott Mit Uns

>Christfags are by far the biggest idiots who REFUSE to admit they don't understand the concept of the burden of proof or skepticism.
Show me the burden of proof for your bubble bath of universes that disappears in and out of existence theory.

What the fuck are you even trying to say at this point. Holy shit you've spun into retardation

> When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he declared.

I guess Paul was meming too, he didn't know jews hated all christians and would have killed him for visiting synagogues and preaching about Jesus

nice pasta

1. Sources and First Expressions: Al-Kindî and Razi
Aristotle's philosophy of mind in Islamic philosophy is a combination of what we would today call psychology and physiology, and is not limited to investigations of our rational faculty. However important, the “mind” or intellect, with its practical and theoretical aspects, is only part of the falâsifa's “science of the soul.” Their main sources are found in three Aristotelian treatises: On the Soul (De anima), On Sense and Sensibilia (De Sensu et Sensibili), and On Memory and Recollection (De Memoria et Reminiscentia). The last two belong to a series of nine short physical treatises, called accordingly Parva Naturalia, and include two that deal with the related topic of dreams and prophesying by means of dreams.

Practically, yes, and more important, the path from Christianity to Atheism involves Heresy along the way.

that your whole idea that Christianity is...

>literally the opposite of everything jews teach
>literal immediately attacked by jews
>literally hunted and attacked by jews every second since

is retarded and proven to be false

>going into synagauges to teach jews that what they believed was WRONG and that this new COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BELEIF was correct
>this means it's a jewish belief

This means it's the opposite. If Christianity was jewish it wouldn't require "converting" jews or convincing them they're wrong. The fact he had to go teach jews the new way is proof it's different than the jew way.

1. Sources and First Expressions: Al-Kindî and Razi
Aristotle's philosophy of mind in Islamic philosophy is a combination of what we would today call psychology and physiology, and is not limited to investigations of our rational faculty. However important, the “mind” or intellect, with its practical and theoretical aspects, is only part of the falâsifa's “science of the soul.” Their main sources are found in three Aristotelian treatises: On the Soul (De anima), On Sense and Sensibilia (De Sensu et Sensibili), and On Memory and Recollection (De Memoria et Reminiscentia). The last two belong to a series of nine short physical treatises, called accordingly Parva Naturalia, and include two that deal with the related topic of dreams and prophesying by means of dreams.

The De anima was fully translated into Arabic in the ninth century C.E., the Parva Naturalia partially translated, including those treatises relevant to our topic. Muslim authors had access to Arabic translations of Hellenistic commentaries on these works, particularly those done by Alexander of Aphrodisias (third century c.e.) and Themistius (fourth century).[1] The views of the Muslim philosophers reflect these various sources, and are thus “Aristotelian” in an attenuated sense, particularly as concerns the role and entailments of the rational faculty.

>THAT CREATED OUR CIVILIZATION
Pretty sure that was the Romans, Torontoman

It is objectively correct and wasn't proven to be false

Belief in God is the main problem. Belief is defined as being based on evidence, which can be disputed, challenged, or skewed.

When Moses asked God who to say sent him, He replied, 'I Am.' Brilliant.

God is fact, not a belief. 'I Am' means, "I exist". It's like arguing gravity, or the truth in the #DNCLeaks. You can argue the how, why, what, when, where, but you can't argue the actual fact.

Nobody gets offended when you say you don't believe in gravity. Why should this be different?

I mean really, Paul literally spends whole chapters in Acts going to synagogues and explaining Jews that his religion is not opposite, but that Christianity completes Judaism

But here you are, telling us that Paul didn't mean any of what he said, that he would have had to hide from the jews (why was his custom visiting synagogues and debating with pharisees then)?

Look into 7th dimension planck distribution.

There's a lot more evidence (testable) supporting 10 dimension structural support for the universe than your sun worshipping garbage, you faggot.

You're just too lazy to do any research outside of believing your sky daddy has a special place in his heart for you. You're a disgrace to human intellect.

The major Islamic philosophers produced no works dedicated to aesthetics, although their writings do address issues that contemporary philosophers might study under that heading. The nature of beauty was addressed by Islamic philosophers in the course of discussions about God and his attributes in relation to his creation, under the inspiration of Neoplatonic sources such as the pseudo-Aristotelian Theology of Aristotle, a compilation based upon the Enneads of Plotinus. Considerations of artistic beauty and creativity were also addressed in works inspired by Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics, and Islamic philosophers also adapted some of Plato's views on literature and imitation, particularly those expressed in the Republic.

So Paul is a liar?

Paul is not a fulfillment of Judaism?

Why do you follow a religion founded by a liar?

Pretty sure the romans were destroyed 2000 years before our civilzation m8. Might want to pic up a history book and read about that significant period of time

anti christian is anti west. Jesus literally gave chosen status to the goyim

On the whole, Islamic philosophers did not view artistic and literary creativity as ends in themselves. Rather, their interest was in explaining the relations of these activities to purely intellectual ends. In the case of poetics and rhetoric in particular, the emphasis in Islamic philosophy was pragmatic and political: poetics and rhetoric were viewed as instruments for communicating the demonstrated truths of philosophy to the populace, whose intellectual abilities were presumed to be limited. The medium of such communication was usually, although not necessarily, that of religious discourse. Islamic philosophers also devoted considerable attention to explaining the psychological and cognitive foundations of aesthetic judgment and artistic production within the spectrum of human knowledge. They argued that rhetoric and poetics were in some important respects non-intellectual arts, and that poetics in particular was distinctive in so far as it addressed the imaginative faculties of its audience rather than their intellects.

>You can't preach Christianity to Jews.
>All the jews where the same in the ancient time and all where Pharisies that hated Jesus.

readIf you had to teach Jews that they were wrong and this new belief was correct, it is not a Jewish belief. Everything about Christianity is the opposite of what Jews believe, that salvation can come to anyone and that you do not need to be born Jewish. It was a response to the Jews and the opposite of what they believed and required them to change beliefs and was subsequently attacked by jews all through history

didlolect dildolect didldolect

there are two gods
one loves you
one hates you

pick

Your minds are as weak as the night is black; it’s just imagination that you seem to lack.

Plotinus' Ennead V.8, 'On Intelligible Beauty', was the basis for the fourth chapter of the Arabic compilation known as the Theology of Aristotle (see Plotinus §§1, 7). Against the background of the discussion of beauty in this text, Islamic philosophers developed the theme of the differences between sensible and intelligible beauty; and the love and pleasure associated with each.

>this much tipping

The notion of intelligible beauty is included in the discussion of the names and attributes of God contained in al-Farabi's al-Madina al-fadila (The Virtuous City) (see al-Farabi §2). Among the divine names al-Farabi lists 'beauty' (al-jamal), 'brilliance' (al-baha'), and 'splendour' (al-zina). Although the connotations of these terms are principally visual and hence sensible, al-Farabi argues that beauty in all things is primarily ontological: the more any being attains its final perfection, the more beautiful it is. From this he reasons that God, whose existence is most excellent, is the most beautiful of beings. Moreover, God's beauty surpasses all other beauty because it is essential, not accidental: the source of God's beauty is his own substance as defined by his self-contemplation, whereas created beauty derives from accidental and corporeal qualities that are not one with their own substances. Finally, al-Farabi argues that pleasure and beauty are intimately related, and that consequently God's pleasure, like his beauty, is beyond our comprehension. Pleasure is attendant upon the perception or apprehension (idrak) of beauty, and it increases in proportion to the beauty of what is perceived. Since God is the most beautiful of beings, and since his proper activity consists in an act of self-contemplation in which knower and known are completely one, the intensity and certitude of God's perception of his own beauty, al-Farabi reasons, must yield a pleasure of equal intensity. Moreover, since God's perception of his own beauty is the function of an eternal and uninterrupted act of contemplation, his pleasure, unlike ours, is continual rather than intermittent.

While al-Farabi's treatment of beauty in this context is principally an extension of his general account of divine transcendence and perfection along standard Neoplatonic lines, the development of the connection between beauty, perception and pleasure introduces a more properly aesthetic element into his account. Beauty in God, like beauty in the sublunar world, is found principally in things in so far as they achieve their proper perfection; when that beauty, be it sensible or intelligible, becomes an object of contemplation, it becomes in turn a source of pleasure for the one beholding it.

The contrast between sensible and intelligible beauty and the affective pleasures proper to each is developed in more detail in the Risala fi al-'ishq (Treatise on Love) by Ibn Sina. In the fifth chapter of this work, Ibn Sina discusses the youthful love of external, bodily beauty. He opens his discussion of the love of beauty with a consideration of four principles, three of which pertain to the psychology of the human soul. The first is based upon Ibn Sina's characteristic view of the soul as a single substantial unity comprising a hierarchy of distinct powers. Either these powers can work together in harmony, in which case the lower will be ennobled by their cooperation with the highest faculty, that of reason, or the lower powers can rebel. These two possibilities are especially evident in the relations between reason and imagination (al-takhayyul) and the desires attendant upon them. The second principle is an elaboration upon the first: there are some human actions which pertain only to the bodily, 'animal' faculties within this hierarchy, including sensation, imagination, sexual intercourse, desire and aggression. Either these actions can be pursued in a purely animal fashion, or they can be transformed into something uniquely human under the guidance of reason.

Ibn Sina's third principle is that everything ordained by God has its own proper goodness and hence is the object of some legitimate desire; nonetheless, the lower desires can interfere with the higher, and thus their unlimited pursuit is to be avoided. Finally, Ibn Sina's fourth principle presents his definition of beauty in so far as it is the object of love for both the rational and animal souls: beauty (al-husn) consists in order (al-nazm), composition, (al-ta'lif) and symmetry (al-i'tidal). In the animal soul, this love of beauty is purely natural, arising either from instinct or from the simple pleasure of sensible perceptions. In the rational soul, however, love of beauty is more reflective, ultimately resting upon the recognition of the proximity of the beloved object to God, the First Beloved.

In applying these principles, Ibn Sina argues that there is what we might call an innate aesthetic sense implanted in every intellectual being (al-'aqil) which kindles in it a passionate desire for what is beautiful to behold (al-manzar al-husn). Despite the overall orientation of his discussion to the desire for the supra-sensible and purely intelligible beauty of God, Ibn Sina's remark here clearly pertains to the realm of sensible judgments. In fact, Ibn Sina even argues that such a desire for sensible beauty on the part of an intellectual being can be a noble thing, so long as the purely animal aspects of the desire are subordinated and the intelligible allowed to influence the sensible: such a purified aesthetic desire, according to Ibn Sina, results in a partnership (al-shirka) between the animal and rational souls. As evidence of this more general claim, Ibn Sina notes that even the most wise of humans can be preoccupied by a 'beautiful human form', and he implies that such a preoccupation is justified not only by the intrinsic aesthetic principles he has outlined, but also on the assumption that internal and external beauty and harmony mirror one another, unless the external beauty has been accidentally harmed or the internal character has been altered (for better or worse) by habituation. Finally, Ibn Sina also defends the desire for some sort of physical union with such a beloved, through kissing and caressing, although the expression of such an aesthetic impulse through sexual union is considered inappropriate except for the purpose of procreation, and where sanctioned by religious law.

I wish I was dumb enough to believe, but I'm just simply too smart

I think anyone who legitimately believes in any religion should be certified as retarded. But I also think Christian values should remain and America is worse without them. It keeps stupid people in check

that is not "contradicting" judaism, that is literally trying to turn everyone into Jews and Jew servants

It is noticiable Paul STILL talks in terms of redemption of Israel, with the gentiles as an auxiliary force

see:

> So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel,
> until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
> And so all ISRAEL will be saved; as it is written, "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”
> “And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”
> As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for YOUR sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
> Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.

And then people here scratch their heads as to why are Christians a bunch of Zionists!

Many jews on Cred Forums then

Nuke Panama for the safety of white children. It's a den of fedoras and kikes.

t. jew slave

>t. trembling kike

thats right ,i always say i dont have enough faith to be a atheist.

Why are you so obsessed with ibn Sina, he has few works, which could be considered his. He was an archivist, his works are a collection of greek and indian thoughts.

Christianity is a death sentence for the white race, wake up you fucking goyim.

Link related: sunray22b.net/how_christianity_harms_the_race.htm

I dont need belief in anything to be moral
If you are moral BECAUSE OF something then you are not moral at all

> Rome falls and Saint Augustine laughs "lol who cares about earthly cities, muh City of god!"
> Christians give Jews a monopoly on loaning and financing during the Middle Ages, making them extremely powerful
> Christian Crusaders "liberate" Jerusalem but end up sacking the byzantine empire
> Christians destroy 30 % of Europe over an argument about the kike book
> Christians demand open borders because "muh meek will inherit the Earth"
> HURR DURR THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE FEDORAS xDDD

...

Fedoras are the goodest goyim. Fedoras hace no cause but to themselves, so when a kike offers them pleasure, they take it. They both equally hate Christianity. They have no place in the West.

Nuke Panama for the safety of white children.

> Christians give Jews a monopoly on loaning and financing during the Middle Ages, making them extremely powerful

Lazy Germans

> Christian Crusaders "liberate" Jerusalem but end up sacking the byzantine empire

4th Crusade happened long over Jerusalem fell and had nopthing to do with religion

> Christians destroy 30 % of Europe over an argument about the kike book

That was a power strugle similar to Roman civil wars

> Christians demand open borders because "muh meek will inherit the Earth"

Not all Christian churches. The bible even distinguishes people as nations

> HURR DURR THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE FEDORAS xDDD

Atheists have hardly any kids decreasing the white birth rate.

He perfected them

Now kys

I am
Byzantine

You are looking at the Byzantine empire

Which is I

>The greatest minds of the world have been atheists
I think you meant Jews

you guys are just as bad as numales and exactly what jews want

because you're assholes and believe its "alpha", another jew lie

In victorian england for example if you were an asshole publicly people would just drop you but you people know shit about real conservative values, you're just a product for the SJW to fight against

I'm familiar with this topic and if you exclude medicine, there isn't much orignal thought left. Even the worth of his commentary on Aristoteles, is considered to be fastly over blown. The funny thing is, that most schools of islamic thought, are not sure wheater he was a "real" muslim due to his sufistic interpretation of islam.

Dude, the Bible starts lying the first book.

Genesis 6:3 and Genesis 11

Second book "Thou shall not murder."

Third book JUST KIDDING

Matthew 1 and Luke 3

WHOA DERE

Joseph, Son of David, how come your genealogies no match? Oh Joseph, Root of Jesse

I would say Jesus, but apparently Jesus is of no blood relation to Joseph.

A fucking leaf

Yes, delusional kike on a stick worshippers.

/thread

Atheism means more red piling actually.I become racist sexist misogynist after I left Islam since I had to for.ulate a worldview based on nature. Thing is ,I left Islam because it was misogynistic sexist and such. So this is definitely weird for me.

there are two gods your arrogents stupid fuck
you are right the the human mind can't comprehend all of god
therefore to make sence of it you have to split it into two light and dark

your bitchass rabbi was debating the dark half and it lied to him; the rabbi didn't win

moral relitivism is the path to destruction and darkness.

convert to the path of light or be tread upon.
also israel and saudi will go to war pretty soon.
they betrayed you
your own tricks used against you get you to confirm it

we know the king is a kike

The Talmud IS the Old Testament retard

And then there's 1 John 4 in contradiction with Jesus saying to hate your mom, dad, brother and sister.

By the teachings in 1 John 4, Jesus, the Messiah, couldn't be leading people towards God by demanding they hate.

Hence, Modern. That's why traditional Christians aren't degenerates

Kys we perfected it and you suxk our dixk

>what is supersessionism
christians are the chosen people, not jews

I just leave this here.
You know that white people have a religion, do you?

>we perfected it
you are just some third world scum you did nothing

Christians superseded the jews, as salvation is now given to everyone regardless of their race so long as they believe in the Jesus Christ. That's the whole point of the NEW testament.

It was the sign of the cross, the Chi Rho to be exact. Last time I hear mudslimes are woshipping the moon god.

In the Newton's era the theory of evolution by natural selection was not yet known. Therefore Creationism was the only explanation of Human existence.

>Jews caused downfall of Rome
I see it's ignore historical facts day

>tfw baptised Greek Orthodox

feels good man

do you have muslim friends ?

That's the Torah. Talmud was written after Jesus.

Yes because any proper scientist at that time would have believed that nothing becomes something

>Oh the universe is huge there is no god

But the thoughts in it are much older.

Panama is in central america tho

we must remove all abrahamic religions

christianity is a slave religion, which is why it caught on with slaves and women

there is no self improvement in christianity. it is anti-self improvement. it sees this world as fundamentally fallen and flawed. there is no redemption in this world only the next.

the only future is with singularity tech. christians will oppose it. they must be stopped along with all the other abrahamic religions

Well said, fellow kike. Let's make more porn because Christ sucks, right?

It's more of a case of "even a broken clock is right twice a day". Aquinas acknowledged that some Arabic reasonings went a long way in proving the existence of a singular, all-powerful creator deity. He did not, however, have even the slightest inclination to acknowledge Muhammad as God's final prophet. He correctly saw that Muhammad merely adresses the urges of the body whereas Christ appealed to the yearnings of the soul.

There are no atheists on Cred Forums

only shills.

I believe sometimes we run across a redditor who loves the smell of bernies farts, and preaches nihilism but that's about it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Christian
>Reality

Pick one, faggot.

dude people claimed to be christian in order to be able to do science and not get burned alive.

shit, i still claim christian so that i get special access to certain groups and funds.

i'm not chrisitan and find all christians have the same weird glazed look in their eyes. it's some sort of zombie dead brain cells look.

>dude people claimed to be christian in order to be able to do science and not get burned alive.

Show some proof like some diaries maybe.

>shit, i still claim christian so that i get special access to certain groups and funds.

So your a cowardly jew

>i'm not chrisitan and find all christians have the same weird glazed look in their eyes. it's some sort of zombie dead brain cells look.

Da fuck? Now fedoras think we are ghouls or something?

Wow. People actually believe this. Newton and Einstein rolling in their graves.

i'm not jewish.

make porn if you like.

i prefer to concentrate on making the singularity happen. once it does, the need for primitive religions goes away.

there is much to discover and learn about nature and the universe and existence. that learning will not be found in old books written by men who were afraid of vaginas.

>dude people claimed to be christian in order to be able to do science and not get burned alive.
Uh-huh, which is why Pascal (a contemporary of Newton and only slightly after Keppler and Galileo) wrote his Pensées to convince Atheists of the existence of God (while at the same time arguing that faith is irrational), right? Which is why Descartes (another contemporary) did the same but from a more reason-based angle, right? Which is also why Maxwell, Kelvin, Hugo, Gödel and Lemaître were incredibly pious men in a time where being atheistic had become fashionable among the upper classes, right?

and if you looked at what most of those men believed, it is a far cry from any sort of orthodox christianity.

My goodness. Those are two different genealogies. One is the Wife, which is the important one. The other is Joseph, which doesn't matter really.

The thou shalt not murder means not to kill anyone for personal gain. The Jews disobeyed this all the time but God disproved of that and punished them all the time for it. Read Kings 1 and 2.

You've clearly never studied the Bible.

Jesus Christ was setting the contrast between loving God vs this world and everything it offers. Study more.

You're probably right for Newton and Pascal. Not so much for the others, whose beliefs were mostly in line with Catholocism or some form of mainstream Protestantism. And to go back to Pascal, he was a Jansenist. In other words, his biggest problem with the established Catholic Church was its hierarchy (probably due to some corruption scandals that eventually led to Protestantism) and Jansenists themselves saw themselves as orthodox, devout followers of... St. Augustine, the father of the Catholic Church!

So yeah, the only one you have even half a point on is Newton.

Technophiliacs should get purged. They either fall on the Deus ex Machina or let Humans become god idiocy.

You do realize Christianity is a sand nigger religion?

The Talmud is the Oral Law which Jesus Christ himself disapproved of. Put on paper around 600 AD.

You really know nothing about the Bible at all.

The Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible.

No they aren't. The Torah was written way before any of the oral traditions came about which are in the Talmud.

Tenach actually, which consists of the Torah (five laws of moses) Nebiim (Jewish history, I think?) and Chetubim (Psalms and poetry).

Technically a lot of the Torah itself was oral tradition before being codified.

You're dodging the point I made.

The first 5 Books were written by Moses and Joshua. They were both faithful servants of God and faithfully recorded even their mistakes and all the laws which God wanted them to.

The Oral Law is the traditions of man. Not of God. Which Christ condemned.

>The Oral Law is the traditions of man. Not of God. Which Christ condemned.
Wouldn't that technically mean Christ would also disapprove of Catholocism, which puts a shitload of human tradition on top of the Bible? And Eastern Orthodoxy? And Anglicanism?