>From the twisted mind of John Carpenter...

It's just the truth. Backwards ideologies will never prevail because they're inherently a manifestation of lower class people.

Depends on how much you value the truth, I guess.
There's a different standard of living and functioning in society for those who are civilized and those who aren't. The latter want a piece of civilization but they don't have what it takes to either conquer it, or even keep it functioning if they do.

We are, yes. It's just that white radicals fall into the same camp is all.

Radicals ultimately always fail because their ways are incompatible with humanity's normal state of function, which at this point has become quite advanced in the first world.

> and are replaced by "backwards" (normal) people all the time
Normal is a matter of perspective. I don't view radical islam as being a normal state of functioning for example.

Christianity no longer has a strong grip on society either though.
The biggest enemy to stagnation is time itself, not any ideology.

People will be buttholes with or without religion.
The truth is that most people in the first world live in a state of over-abudance for the most part, and have no real incentive to be buttholes. It's just that they've become spoiled and don't know what real issues look like, so they start turning mundane shit into a big deal.
A person's favorite brand of toothpaste alone is enough to spark a massive debate when in reality it's completely trivial.

Religion can be useful as a morality system and a lifestyle advisor/strategy, for lack of a better term, but anything it teaches can also be passed down to a person without the ideology itself.
Whether or not religion plays a role in this, the fact of the matter is that people aren't as hospitable as they were once taught to be. The factors are many, so there's no point in singling out a sole reason.

Illusion. People didn't bring guns into school because society and their families were more prosperous and stable. Christianity is a game and when you remove the incentive, the game ceases to be worth playing. In addition, if one player lacks the disincentives to cheat in the game, the game becomes corrupted. Feminism and economic instability has destroyed Christianity. Or did you not watch Game of Thrones?

>In other words, the lack of real religion.
No, it's the lack of good upbringing, and like I said, other factors. Religion is just culture and ideology. Ideology can instill in you a variety of beliefs that may not all be optimal for a civilized way of living.
But most adults are intuitively aware of what is appropriate and what isn't without the need of ideology to guide them every step of the way.

It doesn't need to be Jesus per se. There's people of other religions and even aetheists who follow and implement many of the same rules of proper conduct.
Whether God exists or doesn't is a subject of its own, but religion itself is something which has man's paws all over it. And as such, a lot of these guiding principles are things that come naturally to humans by the way we evolved.
You don't need knowledge of God in order to have paternal/internal instincts for example.
Religion is just a way to group those beliefs together and adopt a specific lifestyle in accordance.

>considering millions of women admit to murdering their newborns
Do they, or are you referring to abortion, which isn't a "newborn"?

There is a difference even then, because a fetus isn't an autonomous fully sentient organism. It's an extension of the mother.
And abortion is the only sound alternative in certain events like rape.
But that's another topic in itself. My point is that religion can make you believe whatever its creators want you to believe.
It can teach you that child murder is the only ascent to Heaven, for example.
So beyond ideology and religion, there is a level of universal behavior that is considered civilized that members of society have to upkeep if they want to be able to function in it properly.
You shouldn't need religion to tell you that, say, patricide is a bad thing.

>people can only be good through instilling fear in them
Pretty bleak way of looking at things tbh. Not to mention you underrate the intelligence of the species this way.

wtf is "bleak" about reacting to negative things negatively? that's the opposite of bleak. bleak is NOT doing that, then you literally just die.

>It's bleak to assume you can only have good results among people if the only other option they're presented with is hellfire or eternal torture.
You can indeed "only" have good results if you recognize bad results as bad. People don't rationally recognize bad things as bad and choose not to do them. If they did there would be no fat people, no alcoholics, no druggies, and definitely no Cinemaphile posters. If people didn't feel fear and pain they would all literally be dead. A society that doesn't make people feel fear and pain in response to very abstract decisions, that don't actually directly cause fear and pain, then it will die for the same reason.

I don't know what your point is. You're saying that people know these things are bad, but they do them anyway. That's my point. If overeating made you feel nothing but pain, you wouldn't do it. But it doesn't, it feels really good. So you do it even though you know it's wrong. Which is besides the point of, how do you know that something's wrong if you don't feel bad from doing it? If you got fatter and fatter and everyone told you that this was not a problem, and instead of feeling the agony of your broken body you inappropriately felt more comfort instead, and you just rationalized away all the things you could no longer do as not all that important anyway and definitely a worthy sacrifice. The reason being fat is bad is because it fricking feels bad, and the reason it feels bad is because it kills you. If the negative consequences were just abstract things like it making you infertile, lowering your lifespan, making you hideous, etc., that you could easily rationalize away (I don't want kids anyway, living too long is bad anyway, "hideous" is in the eye of the beholder anyway), and everyone (like (You)) would celebrate the idea that we should only think good thought and anyone who thought bad thoughts were "bleak", everyone would be fat, and they would be happy to be fat, and then they would be dead with no children. And that's why people aren't happy to be fat.
Anyway. I don't know how many different ways I need to repeat the same argument. If you don't get it then you don't get it. Go back to your body positivity club to talk about how everyone just needs to be less negative and just let everyone be happy, and how sad you think it is that people actually want things to *be* less bad rather than just wanting them to *feel* less bad.

>they'll immediately go to hell and be tortured though.
You don't understand what Hell is. Hell is simply the condition of your soul in the absence of Gods love and grace. In Christian theology, the 'burning' you experiene in Hell is actually Gods love, but you hate it so much that it burns you. God never changes: he is pure Love and Grace through and through. But if you deny Him, when you face your judgement, his love will burn your soul instead of infinitely expand and multiply it endlessly, forever. In other words: God doesn't judge us, we judge ourselves relative to his perfect love. God doesn't torture us, either. The most powerful parts of the Bible are Christ and God weeping for people who simply do not love Him.

You have a very, very poor understanding of Christian theology. please stop typing about it as if you have any idea what you're talking about.

I agree. I'm not advocating leading people by fear. I'm advocating you to stop speaking on theological concepts you don't understand. That being said, you can't love God until you fear him first, and the fear of existance without Him. The thought of Hell, or the absence of God, should scare you.

>they should STILL apply many of those teachings in their life if they want to succeed.

Sure, I don't disagree there. But God does exist, and Christianity is real, so that way of thinking is irrelevant. The only way a society can function fully and to it's greatest potential is if everyone is Christian, full stop.

>people always end up asking "why should I be doing this?"
No they don't. You're being presumptuous. With or without religion, the number of neurotypical and non-neurotypical people will be the same.
What you're describing here are sociopaths, not regular people. You don't need God to tell you skinning a child alive and devouring it on the street is morally wrong. A religious system is just an easier way to implement a form of appropriate behavior in society, but it can also be used for improper purposes, or as a brainwashing tool.
So the source of the teachings is important.

My point is that a psychopath won't change his ways regardless if he's a Christian or a twitter warrior.
The solution is to not be one in the first place, or seek adequate help if you are one. Along with implementing restrictive laws on individuals who have a tendency to commit inhumane acts.

Psychopaths are born. This doesn't mean that all of them will act out on their unique brain chemistry. Many of them never do.
But a Christian isn't exempt from committing an act of evil just by virtue of being a Christian.
They have to mean it.

*something
gotta love typos

> By most medical definitions, Christ was a psychopath
How? The vast majority of his teachings are in direct contradiction to how a psychopath operates.

This poster already said what it is

>By most medical definitions, Christ was a psychopath.
First off, Jesus told me to tell you to "shut the frick up" and that "such a statement is stupid", but to answer in the most basic and realistic way a psychopath is a person who:
>can hurt you without remorse
>does not care how you feel
>only cares for themselves

If you want a more technical explanation I can provide it, but I don't see the point.

Psychopaths aren't born anon. Becoming a psychopath is the result of the condition of ones environment. Christ gave everyone a way out of their psychological dilemma's, there is hope for everyone.

>they are!
>b-because I say so!

No one is a psychopath in their base state. It is always the result of ones environment, usually when they're born, say if they had an abusive father and a neglectful mother.

Yes and no. You can be born a psychopath but still function properly in society.

First of all, I'm a Christian. But by

>By most medical definitions, Christ was a psychopath.
First off, Jesus told me to tell you to "shut the frick up" and that "such a statement is stupid", but to answer in the most basic and realistic way a psychopath is a person who:
>can hurt you without remorse
>does not care how you feel
>only cares for themselves

's own definition, Christ was a psychopath. He hurt a lot of israelites feelings without remorse, like when He called them 'devil worshippers' in John. He did not care how they felt when he told them this. He did not only care for Himself, he cared for all humanity. But in some instance you could say Christ did exhibit psychopathic behaviour (though I don't think of people in terms of psychological definitions)

>Christ was a psychopath
No he wasn't. Telling an evil person that he's evil isn't psychopathy, it's being objective.

So you consider yourself a Christian, but think the Pharisees who crucified Jesus were correct in their assessment that he was insane? I wish I knew what was happening inside your brain.

Their reasoning was obviously because he was seen as a heretic and a threat to their power, not that he was crazy and they were doing it out of 'public safety' or some other nonsense.

We're getting caught up on semantics. I, as a Christian, obvioulsy do not think Christ was a psycopath. I was simply stating that from a purely secular standpoint, one could say that Christ was a psychopath. I am almost amazed that one little off-hand observation I made spurred so much ass-hurt and misunderstanding from my fellow Christian brothers.

But 'evil' as an act can only exist if hell is real. The very fact we can even hurt eachother at all is proof of God, and Heave, as well as Satan, and hell's, existence, so I actually do disagree with you there.

Their reasoning was obviously because he was seen as a heretic and a threat to their power, not that he was crazy and they were doing it out of 'public safety' or some other nonsense.

Evidently, you haven't been paying as much attention to the Gospels as you should.

>Hell's existence or geographical positioning
Hell is a state of being, not a literal 'place'. You are still thinking of Hell in a far too child-like way. Come out from the childish ways you were taught about Heaven and Hell and come into the reality of it. Hell is existence with the absence of God. It has no geographical place or positioning.

He was speaking metaphysically and cosmologically, about an abstract spiritualy reality, in such a way that you could perceive and understand what is currently beyond our perception and understanding. Maybe one day, you will get it.

>just come the frick on.
"Come the frick on", what? Let you have an incorrect understanding of a very basic Christian Theological concept? No, I will correct your misundertanding for your own benefit.

Christ came to abolish commandments. That was his contention with the Pharisee's. The only Commandment is to Love Him with all your heart, all your spirit, and all your soul, and he states that literally.

What denomination of Christian are you? I am a practicing Orthodox Christian, and this is the Orthodox Christian tradition. It seems to me your understanding of Christian theology is far too protestant.

Mark 12:29-31

Christ does not want a bunch of people following a strict set of rules and commandments, but a specific type of person, or ontologial state. If you love God with all your strength, heart, and soul, there are no such things as 'commandments'. You will always be following them without effort or concious thought.

Define it as you wish. My point is that again, regardless of Hell and Heaven, there are some things you should apply to your life that just so happen to coincide with Christian beliefs of "good and evil", if you want to be a productive member of society and not a leper or a saboteur.

Hell is real and the fires burn there for all eternity. Our God is a vengeful one. You need to repent immediately and stop twisting my religion into some kind of free-wheeling hippie lovefest.

And Hell is for people who do not seek forgiveness. Matthew 13:50
Jesus was not a hippie. Matthew 10:34

No, I'm not speaking in metaphors here and neither is the Bible. Hell is real, the fire is real, and if you are sent there you will burn for all eternity. In the most literal terms. Pic related is how the Bible even says it will happen.
God does take delight in vengeance on his enemies. My citation is the entirety of the Old Testament.

Maybe one day YOU will understand, and hopefully it will be before the day of your final judgement in the presence of an angry God.

Jesus whipped the frick outta those guys at the temple, then later said he was coming back not bring peace, but to take it away with a sword.

>Jesus whipped the frick outta those guys at the temple

Yes, because he was an ordained rabbi and wasn't getting a cut.

Old Testament God and New Testament God are not the same. God literally 'changes His mind' with Christ. Old Testament God is a vengeful and hating God, but Christ is the opposite, and it's through Him we are judged. God and Christ DO hate evil and the enemies to good. But they do not take pleasure and delight in their suffering. This is deep level theological stuff we are talking about right now that I fear may be a little bit too far beyond your understanding at this time.

>So, whether you believe or not, you might admit that fear or force or both have to come into play in order to make people comply
They have to be used to make certain people comply. Namely psychopaths and those who were born with gimped brain chemistry. But regular people have a loose knowledge of right from wrong.

I'm not wrong.

>He did not only care for Himself, he cared for all humanity
Just not the israelites

This. israelite simply means 'chosen'. israelites were 'chosen' to bear the revelation of Christ and Him coming into the world, specifically the prophets. Once Christ came, 'Judaism' ceases to exist. Everyone became 'Jew' then, or 'chosen'. We are all chosen under Christ.

No, he did care for the israelites. In fact he grieved the hardest that the israelites, the people who were supposed to recognize him immeditely, by and large denied Him.

I don't know what your point is. You're saying that people know these things are bad, but they do them anyway. That's my point. If overeating made you feel nothing but pain, you wouldn't do it. But it doesn't, it feels really good. So you do it even though you know it's wrong. Which is besides the point of, how do you know that something's wrong if you don't feel bad from doing it? If you got fatter and fatter and everyone told you that this was not a problem, and instead of feeling the agony of your broken body you inappropriately felt more comfort instead, and you just rationalized away all the things you could no longer do as not all that important anyway and definitely a worthy sacrifice. The reason being fat is bad is because it fricking feels bad, and the reason it feels bad is because it kills you. If the negative consequences were just abstract things like it making you infertile, lowering your lifespan, making you hideous, etc., that you could easily rationalize away (I don't want kids anyway, living too long is bad anyway, "hideous" is in the eye of the beholder anyway), and everyone (like (You)) would celebrate the idea that we should only think good thought and anyone who thought bad thoughts were "bleak", everyone would be fat, and they would be happy to be fat, and then they would be dead with no children. And that's why people aren't happy to be fat.
Anyway. I don't know how many different ways I need to repeat the same argument. If you don't get it then you don't get it. Go back to your body positivity club to talk about how everyone just needs to be less negative and just let everyone be happy, and how sad you think it is that people actually want things to *be* less bad rather than just wanting them to *feel* less bad.

I just misunderstood you then.

>A religious system is just an easier way to implement a form of appropriate behavior in society
>So the source of the teachings is important.

are you implying the entire basis and source of religous thought, regardless of religion, is to form 'appropriate behaviour' (whatever that means) in society? If so, you are extremely ignorant of religious thought and theological teaching, and you really shouldn't post about things that you have no understanding of.

>No, you actually do. You just take Christian morality for granted because it's the foundation of your society.
Thank you! Why can't I just say that? I suck.

>I am genuine when I say I could've grown up in a society that forces me to kill and eat children and it would still go against my DNA. Simple as that.
>You can only brainwash a person so much.

RITE! Know why? I'll give you three guesses.

>Because I'm part of a species that has a higher capacity of thought.
Anon, Star Trek aside, even evil humans are like that.

> I have a conscience and can feel empathy for other living creatures
Because of Jesus yet again. You keep missing the forest for the trees.

>Because most people have empathy even for adults, let alone children who haven't even had a chance to truly wrong anyone yet.
What's that got to do with anything? I can have empathy for a desperate drug addict before I put him down too.
>Not to mention, you're stripping someone of life before they've even had a chance to truly live it.
But what's objectively wrong with that?

NTA, but this is extremely redundant reasoning. I could make an argument as to why we need to eat children and it would be just as equally valid as your opposition toward it because there is no objectivity in this stupid system that gave rise to mental illness and people not being able to even explain what a woman is. I don't know why I bother, if you haven't understood this basic concept yet then you're a stupid fricking goy animal like the israelites say you are.

You live in a society where saying you think it's wrong to slice up and vacuum children to be packaged and sold for scientific research will get you ostracized.

>But why?
Because it's inhumane. Most people would be repulsed by the thought of doing something like that, regardless of their denomination.

>Because it's inhumane.
Why? What makes it inhumane? What does inhumane mean to you and what makes it wrong?
>Most people would be repulsed by the thought of doing something like that, regardless of their denomination.
Are you sure? See above. You're also still not explaining why it would be wrong from an atheist viewpoint. If society at large agreed that it was repulsive for you to eat meat, does that make eating meat objectively wrong?

>Not as wrong as eating your fellow humans.
But why would that be wrong from an atheist viewpoint?
>Why don't you regularly shove pencils inside of your eyes? Is there any particular reason?
It would be extremely painful. You still haven't even answered my original question and now you're just getting angry.

>Because it's inhumane, i.e. an act that isn't befitting of a human who can feel empathy for others.
You're just talking in circles. Explain why this is wrong from an atheist viewpoint.
>Well there you go. Acts of cruelty can cause psychological pain as well if you're neurotypically wired.
Shoving pencils in my eyes hurts me so I don't want to do it. Shoving pencils into someone else's eyes wouldn't hurt me. So why would it be objectively wrong?

>Already did.
No, you didn't. You just keep talking in circles, repeating "it's wrong because it's wrong". You can't explain why, you just know that it is.
>You don't need to be a believer in God to have sympathy for other people or even for animals.
Correct, you don't. This anon already explained why

Why are you even responding when you don't understand what you're talking about? Who gives a frick what "neurotypical" people think is valid or not. They're literally programmed every day through various means to change their values and morality depending on what is pragmatically needed by the elite at the time. I digress, but this appeal to the masses is a fallacy. We don't think evil behaviour is natural, we think people intuitively understand right and wrong objectively because of we're made in the image of God. Murder, theft, rape, etc is all wrong not because some politician said so or because it's "better" (whatever that means) for society that we don't do it, but because God said so.

You don't need to believe in God to be made in God's image, to inherently understand any objective morality derived from existing under God's law. However, from an atheist viewpoint, there is no such thing as any objective morality. There is no absolute law. Everything is up to the whims of the individual. And so if someone thought it would be entertaining to kill, skin, and devour a child, then there is no objective atheistic argument against that. And we can see that play out in real time all around us right now in the abortion debate.
>Then you're a psychopath.
And why is that bad? If a psychopath wants to shove pencils in peoples' eyes, why is that objectively wrong? He finds enjoyment in it, and there is no absolute law he's violating. So where's the problem?

I know you're still not going to answer then question, but it's funny to watch you squirm.

>Explain to me why skinning a child alive and devouring it on the street is objectively wrong from an atheistic viewpoint.

christians are fricking insane. if they didnt believe in their god they'd be fine killing children. mind-blowing. the crazy part is, in their own bible their own god commands his followers to kill babies. even more crazy is they believe billions of souls will be tormented for eternity, no matter how much good they did for others; all because they were born into the wrong religion. terrifying lack of empathy.
to answer your question, i know i wouldn't want to be skinned and eaten. i know i wouldn't want my child to be skinned eaten. i know other human beings exist and experience physical and emotional pain just as much as i do. therefore if i would not want this thing, why would i force it on someone else. even if i did want this, it would be traumatic for most people and i would not want others to force traumatic things on me so i would not skin and eat them.
now explain to me why you are incapable of empathy and why you need a magic sky god to threaten you?

You're not comprehending the argument he's making, you're just repeating what every other generic humanist would say without actually addressing the point.

>Already did.
No, you didn't. You just keep talking in circles, repeating "it's wrong because it's wrong". You can't explain why, you just know that it is.
>You don't need to be a believer in God to have sympathy for other people or even for animals.
Correct, you don't. This anon already explained why [...] You don't need to believe in God to be made in God's image, to inherently understand any objective morality derived from existing under God's law. However, from an atheist viewpoint, there is no such thing as any objective morality. There is no absolute law. Everything is up to the whims of the individual. And so if someone thought it would be entertaining to kill, skin, and devour a child, then there is no objective atheistic argument against that. And we can see that play out in real time all around us right now in the abortion debate.
>Then you're a psychopath.
And why is that bad? If a psychopath wants to shove pencils in peoples' eyes, why is that objectively wrong? He finds enjoyment in it, and there is no absolute law he's violating. So where's the problem?

I know you're still not going to answer then question, but it's funny to watch you squirm.

This is why I have a rule to generally not engage in these topics, I've noticed a pattern that consistently results in circular reasoning and stubbornness.

>Because if these things don't come naturally to him, he's mentally gimped.
But they do come naturally. At this point you're just intentionally dodging the debate, because this was already explained.

Because if morality is derived from God, from any absolute, then there is no argument to be made against it. If morality isn't from a divine absolute, and is just a biological impulse, then there's no more reason to follow it than there is to follow the urge to have sex or to eat. It's entirely up to the whims of the individual.

Let me make it more simple to understand. Do you have a natural inclining to, say, kill and eat children?
Regardless of your faith I mean. Do you have an innate desire to do it?

I do not. Some people do. Can you explain why they'd be wrong to follow that inclination from an atheistic viewpoint? I wonder how many times I've asked this question without receiving an answer.

Morality is derived from nature

People have had morality systems before Christianity and will continue to have them without it or any other religion.

(You)

>advertises suicide
So much for your religion, you're going to Hell now

It's worth living if solely for laughing at you delusional morons. The result of the internet becoming a surrogate parent when the real ones weren't present.

I'm not a brainwashed child so it's unlikely

No, anon, Jobu says there's gold in your head, therefore KILL DESTROY MAKE PEOPLE UNHAPPY.
It is the will of Jobu, so it has to be true.

No, our moral intuition doesn't come from nowhere. You've got it the other way around because you have a flawed foundation to approach this topic. You've wasted enough time giving me moronic non-answers.

I'm not reading all that as you're too stupid to understand any answer I provide. You're mentally challenged and that's fine. Be the way you are, it's your life ultimately.

I've provided plenty of answers but you can't teach a blind person to see, it's that simple. You have gimped brain genetics.

If this is true, explain the widespread acceptance of abortion.

Why is killing a 4 year old wrong and killing an unborn baby not wrong? Explain from an atheist viewpoint.

>They don't possess the same level of consciousness or bodily autonomy
They do.

>It's more humane to "snip it in the bud" then to deprive an already fully living being from life.
Satan is your master 666%.

>Objectively incorrect. They aren't fully formed children yet.
They don't have to be. Besides what I know from personal experience, you could look into how unborn babies dream and even play.

>You're moronic.
Even if I slaughtered teenage camp counselors with a hockey mask, I'm still right.

>How come?
Why be? 😉
Anyways, the truth is that most people forget that they were conscious since the womb.

No, you're wrong too.

Actual memories>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[...]

So if your wife was raped by a non-white hobo you'd take care of that kid like your own?

To be fair, I'm not entirely convinced that anon is religious. A lot of what he says seems like bad faith arguments. But he might be mentally touched and instructed to do as God says as to prevent any other issues, which is understandable (and not really wrong in such a context)

>They don't possess the same level of consciousness or bodily autonomy.
Why does that make it okay? Explain.
>It's more humane to "snip it in the bud" then to deprive an already fully living being from life.
Why is it more humane and why does that make it okay to do? What's wrong with depriving another person of their life?

>It's not as cruel as depriving an autonomous person of life.
But what's wrong with being cruel? Why is that objectively wrong?
>It goes against human morality
What morality? From where are you deriving this morality?

>And if one doesn't want to be a functional member of society?
then they can frick off, go to jail or die, it's not rocket science

Why are you even responding when you don't understand what you're talking about? Who gives a frick what "neurotypical" people think is valid or not. They're literally programmed every day through various means to change their values and morality depending on what is pragmatically needed by the elite at the time. I digress, but this appeal to the masses is a fallacy. We don't think evil behaviour is natural, we think people intuitively understand right and wrong objectively because of we're made in the image of God. Murder, theft, rape, etc is all wrong not because some politician said so or because it's "better" (whatever that means) for society that we don't do it, but because God said so.

Brother, you need to understand epistemological terms like "justification". We have to justify our beliefs otherwise there's no reason to follow them. Christianity offers objective reasoning, which is counter to the entirety of modern Western civilisation.

>But why?
Because it's inhumane. Most people would be repulsed by the thought of doing something like that, regardless of their denomination.

No, I don't get it because it's wrong. You don't need "Jesus" to have empathy. People had that before Jesus. A benefit of Jesus is that he can remind you what the good parts of humanity are, but he did not invent them.

>HAHA nope
Yup. Non-Christian cultures have concepts like empathy and respect for animals.

Yes? It's common knowledge

>terminally online moron thinks the entirety of china has no concept of empathy towards kids or animals

Yes, that's you.

So you genuinely think none of this existed and continues to not exist without Christianity's involvement?

Unlikely, because you're full of shit.

Tears of laughter at an inexperienced larper maybe

>if they didnt believe in their god they'd be fine killing children.
No, but you morons love to intentionally misinterpret the argument and fall back on this. The point is that from a Christian viewpoint, or really any religious viewpoint, there is an objective morality based on the natural, divine law. Things are right or wrong based on that, objectively. Atheism has no such thing, which is why you have a society that regularly grinds up babies and celebrates it and you get confused when someone says it's wrong.

>You can't explain why, you just know that it is.
Why explain what a human being is? Aren't you one already?
>And why is that bad?
Because it's a potential danger to regular people who don't have mental illness.

>Why explain what a human being is?
That's not what I asked you to explain, and now you're just being intentionally obtuse so you can swerve into shitposting and pretend you were never invested in this argument to begin with because you've realized you can't answer the question.
>Because it's a potential danger to regular people who don't have mental illness.
And why is that wrong? You still aren't explaining.

>but it's funny to watch you squirm
Is this really what Christianity is all about? Or are you just LARPers who decided to pretend and believe in something for ulterior motives?

Embarrassing misguided people in public was a favorite tactic of Christ, so I guess you could say that.

>your own hero
>your
^does anyone else here need any more proof that this anon is an Israeli?
Christians do not ever refer to our Lord as "your hero", not ever.

>"when found out they are so hurt"
>"crying out as they strike you"

e-girlng at your whole post, Chaim.

Yeah we know you outed yourself so you're quitting. Wise choice.

Hah and for sure MAGA is way of caught sayof

Let me make it more simple to understand. Do you have a natural inclining to, say, kill and eat children?
Regardless of your faith I mean. Do you have an innate desire to do it?

>It's wrong because it doesn't fit my arbitrary standards of morality.
Thanks for clearing it up, goy.

>No one does that and celebrates it though
Now you're just being delusional. Yes, they do. It's actually a major political talking point and a common activity. It's called abortion.
>Because it's inhumane, i.e. not befitting of a human's standards, of the species' standards.
But what's wrong with that? Why is it wrong to treat someone like that, objectively? For that matter, what human standards? Is there some objective human standard according to an atheistic viewpoint now?
>That's like asking "why is smearing yourself with shit considered wrong?"
Why is that wrong, from an atheistic viewpoint? Can you explain? I don't think you can.
>Lmao, you don't even understand your own hero.
Read the Bible.
>you'd be a lost cause without needing someone to tell you why acts of evil are considered such.
I know why acts of evil are evil. I don't need it explained. I'm asking you to explain why acts of evil are evil from the viewpoint of someone that doesn't believe in objective good or evil.

How many Christians were born pre Jesus you dipshit

You're grossly exaggerating muh gibs while downplaying the actual people who make society function.
>the message of the last 30 years is that terrorism - economic, legal, ideological, and literal is what moves the needle
It doesn't move shit. Just results in more open displays of degeneracy and imprisoned individuals. Terrorism more often than not hurts causes more than it helps them.