Prediction: Christians in the US will convert en-masse to Islam or Darwinism

submitted by VulptexVoluntaryist from self.politics

Christianity in the United States is currently more of a political identity and arguably has been for quite some time. Unfortunately, in 2020 after the riots they changed for the worse, suddenly embracing authoritarian governments and ideological actions much like those seen in radical Islamic theocracies. They have become all about domination and crushing their enemies with a wave of glory, and 100% secular.

Obviously for anyone who still remembers what Jesus taught, it's simply not compatible with this shift in their belief system. They reject everything he says and call his teachings weak and degenerate, and preach the exact opposite, while somehow still saying "Lord, Lord".

I don't believe this will last long. Certain interpretations of Islam are much more viable. So are Darwinist atheist concepts of the "natural order" and anti-spirituality. Christianity is quite explicit about loving everyone, which is antithetical to this new movement.

Once they convert to Islam or atheism, the "progressive" left will probably fully embrace them simply because they're not Christians. Then both will have gone full circle and will all unite in support of the almighty state and the god of this world, which was obviously the plan all along. And Christianity and Judaism will probably be banned and Christians will be sent to concentration camps. It will be a nightmare.

Edit: just found out that Adolf Hitler thought Islam was a good alternative to Christianity for the masses.

all 69 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

Muslims don't have a problem with Christians for the most part. Animosity between Christians and Muslims has been deliberately stirred up in service of the Zionist project.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nope, Christians are specifically persecuted under sharia law, which most Muslims want introduced.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Jews also dont have a problem with Christians. Because both Islam and judaism are enslaving religions that preach tolerance through coin, pen and sword.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Christianity and Islam prohibit usury, Judaism does not. Christians and Muslims revere Jesus and Mary, Jews do not. Judaism formed in reaction to Christianity. The Jewish identity is rooted in their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah i.e. they are fundamentally anti-Christian. Jews and Muslims actually get along alright, as both are legalistic, tribal desert religions, at least until the material interests of Jews and Muslims come into conflict.

[–]cant_even 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Judaism formed in reaction to Christianity.

Please expand on this, because it appears to imply "jews" didn't exist until there was a "Christ" to 'react to'. What sect did the Old-Testament/Torah authors belong to, if it wasn't "Judaism"?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

these oral laws were recorded by Rabbi Judah HaNasi (Judah the Prince) in the Mishnah, redacted circa 200 CE

The Babylonian Talmud was compiled from discussions in the houses of study by the scholars Ravina I, Ravina II, and Rav Ashi by 500 CE

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I think he's wrong, but Judaism was a lot more complicated in the first century. The rabbinical Judaism of today was only one sect back then (it was the Pharisees).

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The closest Christianity comes to that is Jesus saying he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. However he didn't mean we should start fighting battles and break peace, he was simply warning that division over him would spark those things.

[–]Gaslov 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, that's not what he meant. You have absolutely no business telling people what jesus did or did not mean. At least read the bible first, holy crap.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're the one who didn't read it. He explicitly lays out what he meant immediately after saying that. He was warning his followers that they would be persecuted and betrayed, even by those closest to them, and that they should not be fooled into thinking things would go well for them just because they were being good or whatever. It's Matthew 10:34-42 if you want to see for yourself. I don't know what book you're reading if yours says something entirely different.

[–]Rah 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I meant judaism and islam preach enslaving or killing non-believers.

[–]Oyveygoyim 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah nevermind the millions of white Christian slaves owned by desert trash (mudslimes and jews)...

Islam is the ultimate religion of sheep as over 2 billion people worship a child rapist.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Because those "Christians" are de-facto Muslims.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean by "Muslim"?

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They have radical Islamic views. They hate everything Jesus says with a passion. But they would definitely find many aspects of Sharia law attractive. Especially getting to throw gays off buildings.

[–]Islamofascist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Liberals don't like Islam. The only reason they don't hate it as much as Christianity (depending on the person) is because Islam is mostly a brown people's religion while Christianity was traditionally a white people's religion. But if that ever changes, and white people convert en masse to Islam, they will hate Islam more than Christianity. You can go on reddit and see for yourself what libtards think about Islam, or pretty much any religion that actually believes in something.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They like Islam because it's not Christianity. That's pretty much all there is to it. Like I've said before, none of it makes sense, it's all blind tribalism.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Darwinism is a religion?

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Somewhat. It doesn't believe in a god, but it instead worships nature. At least that's how I understand it.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Somewhat. It doesn't believe in a god, but it instead worships nature. At least that's how I understand it.

I think you might be reading things into that aren't necessarily there.

A 'Darwinist' really only believes in survival of the fittest and competition being a 'good'. I'm not sure theres enough here to create what you are suggesting. I would say Darwinism is 'the belief that a hyper-competitive environment will result in optimal outcomes'.

Furthermore "Darwinism" is distinct from "Evolution" and is really a reductive interpretation of evolution.

  1. Natural selection isn't about 'survival' of the fittest, it's about 'reproduction' of the fittest

  2. Even this is reductive. Evolution is not solely about competition, sometimes the fittest are those that cooperate (think ants, bees). Evolutionary scientists would tell you that in resource rich environments, selection tends towards competition, animals in these areas give birth to more young, and have shorter periods to grow into adulthood. In resource scarce environments, it tends towards the opposite, ability to cooperate becomes the driving selective force, and animals have lower reproductive rates, and longer periods of investment in raising their young. This obviously creates different amounts of intra-group competition.

  3. Humans are clearly the latter group - we give birth to few young, have long gestation and childhoods, and create civilizations that require an enormous amount of cooperation and coordination. The ability to cooperate is far more important to a human than being able to beat other humans in individual competition. A human on their own in the woods cannot create advanced physics or industrial machinery, and is a pretty physically weak animal, even if they are a top human specimen

I'd say this also - worshipping nature require believing that the natural processes are what will result in the optimal outcome, but Darwinists seek to intervene in these natural processes, i.e. social darwinists that want to prevent what they view as the undesirables from procreating, rather than letting natural selection determine this on its own. Darwinists would seek to usurp the role of nature, and breed their own superior versions based on their criteria, not natures. A Darwinist thinks this: "Ahh, I see what you are trying to accomplish with natural selection Nature, I, Man, think I can do a better job than you with artificial selection, and will usurp your role". This is a far cry from a naturalist worldview

A naturalist isn't that much different than a monotheist, they just replace 'God's way' with 'Nature's way, it is a different paradigm, to explain the same qualities and rules, and there are even Christian Naturalists, who want to return to Eden so to speak, as God's intent and what is natural are viewed as the same thing. Our original sin was diverging from living naturally according to God's original intent, according to them

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's kind of a cross between Darwinism and Naturalism then. They obsess over the "natural order", and believe that the natural order is purging undesirables and might is right.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's kind of a cross between Darwinism and Naturalism then. They obsess over the "natural order", and believe that the natural order is purging undesirables and might is right.

Yes, I do think there is an ideology such as you are describing that is becoming dominant, and I am not particularly a fan of it. Religions are a type of ideology, so what you are saying is not off the mark in that way. I'm just not sure what to call this, perhaps 'trans-naturalism'? It's almost like trans-humanism applied to all of nature rather than humans

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I mean, I don't think they're wrong that it's the natural order. Because it is. Humans and all social animals are programmed to rid their tribe of undesireables, both of those who are born defective and those who dissent and rebel (which could be a defect in their eyes). It eliminates threats to the system and optimizes the gene pool. Even now in the civilized world, people still treat those who are different horribly, and sometimes even try to purge them. Humans also persecute their enemies savagely, for no reason other than being outsiders. And in nature, might is always right. If Hitler had won WWII, we'd all be worshipping him. If you take off your rose-colored glasses you will see how nature is a 99.99999999999999% negative force by design. It's just awful, yet we worship it.

Yet the evil human instinct goes even deeper than mere cold utilitarianism. They love to inflict completely unnecessary pain on others. For almost all of history, savage torture was the most popular form of entertainment. They're really that sick. I don't believe humans have changed, I think with more people now we're just held more accountable and have to hide it better. If this level of cruelty combined with a shitty nature makes this world look like a horrible hellish nightmare, you're right.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yet the evil human instinct goes even deeper than mere cold utilitarianism. They love to inflict completely unnecessary pain on others. For almost all of history, savage torture was the most popular form of entertainment. They're really that sick. I don't believe humans have changed, I think with more people now we're just held more accountable and have to hide it better.

I think an argument can be made that this isn't natural. Animals do not torture. Animals do not commit genocide upon their rivals. Predators do not war other predators, they compete for the resources, and the loser dies out, rather than trying to exterminate the other. All of these things you are talking about are totally unique to humans and do not exist in the natural order outside of human societies

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You see herd species battling all the time. And cats "play" with their prey.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You see herd species battling all the time. And cats "play" with their prey.

I'd argue both of these things are distinctly different. A cat is not in competition with its prey. A cat would not torture anything it considers a rival, certainly not another cat. Herd animals may battle over a thing in a time and place, they dont torture or exterminate each other. I would argue their are natural rules to competition, and humans violate all of them

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But why torture a mouse? It's no different.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And yes, humans cooperate. More like coerce and brainwash in most cases. But they still compete brutally on a group level, and also punish dissent from within their own. It's called tribalism and is arguably even worse than individual competition.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And yes, humans cooperate. More like coerce and brainwash in most cases. But they still compete brutally on a group level, and also punish dissent from within their own. It's called tribalism and is arguably even worse than individual competition.

No doubt. Both of these strategies have pros and cons, and can get very ugly

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I would rather have individual competition to be honest. When people are more individualized and unique, now that we've finally realized that peace is valuable and mutually beneficial, we're forced to compromise and live and let live. When people become too homogeneous and tribalistic they all band together and become way too powerful, persecuting all outsiders and dissenters. Then they even discard reason for bandwagoning.

It's kind of like how it's better to have a bunch of small greedy companies than one giant nightmare of a government and its 10 pet monopolies. Everything is a hopeless mess, but some things are more dire than others.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think every species likely has an optimum balance of cooperation and competition. Our optimum is likely less competitive and more cooperative than a Great White Shark, but less demanding of rigid conformity than ants or bees. I think its an issue of having a balance that is optimum for our nature. I don't know exactly where to put the line though

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem is the matrix

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, you rascal, only you would bring simulation theory into a conversation about naturalism. My brain hurts just thinking about this

[–]Gaslov 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Dude, you have one corrupted view of what christianity teaches. It's like you took the line "love thy neighbors" without any of the nuance spelled out in the bible. Of course, you also incorrectly claim that the bible endorses homosexuality. Christians and muslims do indeed have a lot in common and they need to unite.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The nuance spelled out is unconditional. Jesus was once asked if you should still love someone who wronged you 7 times. He replied you should even after 77 times, by which he meant don't have a limit. He even said love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you. That's all the nuance there is, pretty straightforward. Otherwise why did he go through all that trouble so our vile deeds go unpunished? That seems to be conveniently forgotten these days. But if you're going to accept it, remember the parable of the debtor.

I never said the Bible endorses homosexuality. I merely dispelled the myth that it condemns it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Interesting stuff, but your premise seems to be hyperbolic and you've provided no evidence.

suddenly embracing authoritarian governments and ideological actions much like those seen in radical Islamic theocracies

They reject everything he says and call his teachings weak and degenerate

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In 2020, when rioters caused mass destruction over one incident they perceived as racist, and the media encouraged it, it was quite a scare. Most conservatives decided it was time to take action, and that meant abandoning conservatism and using government to conquer their enemies. They became partisan purists and so paranoid that anyone who has the slightest disagreement they assume is from the enemy, a new brand of political correctness. They embraced identity politics, adopted the leftist worldview of race vs race, religion vs religion, gender vs gender, orientation vs orientation, only playing as the opposite side. This means that now not only are liberals seen as the enemy, but also anyone who liberals claim to defend, or anyone they associate with the left for whatever reason.

If you don't believe me, here is Exhibit A: https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/20/we-need-to-stop-calling-ourselves-conservatives/

Among the things they feel are plaguing society are weakness and overtolerance. Now weakness does not sound out of place here, but for some reason they view unwillingness to be mean, nasty, and even brutal as weakness. And with that, they stand against Jesus on his most central doctrines. Islam would fit much better, because it returns to the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, which allows and even commands such heinous deeds along with the Quran. And their theocracies are known for things like throwing gay people off of skyscrapers. Now Muslims don't agree on this of course, but correct or not it is much easier to reconcile with Islam, because Christianity is very explicit about loving thy neighbor even if he's against you. And we know how Darwin's ideas of the natural order would also fit nicely.

Even now, they're only fond of Christianity because it's been the American tradition since its founding, and one that goes back thousands of years in most of their cultures. They don't actually believe it deep down. And it's more of a political identity in America, being Christian signals to others what your views on controversies are more than it speaks about your religious beliefs.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You seem to think that there are no actual Christians left in the US. A practicing christian would never insult the teachings of Jesus. There have been some cultural shifts with the rise of the alt-right and the BLM riots, I agree there.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, there are some. But they are dwindling at an alarming rate. They are afraid of Jesus because they now think "love and tolerance" are exclusively leftist values (ironically affirming what those leftists claim), and that is his biggest and only commandment. But it turns out most people care more about keeping their political identity pure and fitting in, and it shows that their Christianity comes from their politics rather than the other way around.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Most of the lefties in power also claim to be Christians. I think it's important to separate real people and faith from these scumbag politicians.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not seriously though

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Atheism is not a religion, it is not an ideology or dogma to which one is converted to or from in the same way that religionns and cults are. If the three, religions and cults have more in common than either have with atheism, as atheism is precisely that which they are not. It is not a belief system, atheists do not all follow the same understanding of the world around us, and not all atheists share the concepts of the natural order you mentioned.

That said, you are discussing the United States in particular, a highly polarised society grounded in a competitive left and right. Even in most Hollywood movies, the social fabric of the US is defined by rivalry, hero Vs villain, sport team Vs sport team, democrats Vs republican, humans Vs aliens, black vs white, cops Vs robbers, cowboy Vs jndian. It's no surpise that you suggest a competitive change in demographics. I find it less likely that atheism will spread as predominantly as in Europe, since atheism seems so commonly spoken of in a pejorative sense. How many would be a successful politician without using the word god every few minutes? More likely the US will end up a bizarre socialist authoritarian country than islamic.

[–][deleted]  (22 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

    Not at all, to be dogmatic there must be a shared belief system to begin with. Atheism is the absence of god, the absence of a belief system, the absence of dogma.

    Atheists are not a group. It is the obsessive compulsive mindset of the religious who are unable to comprehend the existence of anything other than a religious group and therefore they attribute atheism to the equivalent of a religion.

    To not believe in something is not a belief system. Lack of something is not something, lack of dogma is not dogma therefore lack of belief in God is not dogmatic.

    There may be people who do not believe in God who have a belief system, this doesn't mean all atheists share that system, all atheists are individuals who can believe whatever they want.

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    But there is a huge cult of atheists who religiously share a set political and social beliefs. These ones are hard leftist progressives and absolutely despise Christianity, and place a lot of value on "trusting the science", which according to them is whatever the cognitive elites say. And they call anyone who disagrees with them a conspiracy theorist.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    I am fully convinced that there is a single divide in society when it comes to belief. There are the religious and the non-religious.

    As older religious fail to hold up to scrutiny for many in the modern age and atheism is more widely accepted, many appear to be aligning with atheism despite them being very religious people.

    This leads to these religious sorts requiring something new to follow, be it socialism, 'muh science', communism, extinction rebellion, etc. These are atheist in name only, they are highly religiously minded people who are lost without a cause.

    Look at the similarity between those you speak of and the mainstream religions. Indoctrination, ridiculous traditions, repeating monologue talking points to no end, segregation, bullying opposition, etc. They appear brainwashed, just like the religious who talk about Jebus or Mohammed.

    Those you speak of are creating their own dogmatic belief in far-left ideology, this is indeed cult like, but I see little difference between a cult and a religion. So I disagree that they are atheists.

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    You're right, but the "true" atheists are so rare they're probably not even worth mentioning. Lack of religious belief usually leads to agnosticism rather than atheism, because atheism is still faith in there being no god.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    because atheism is still faith in there being no god.

    I reject this claim.

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Then you're more agnostic than atheist. Atheists are sure there's no god. You're not alone, most self-described "atheists" with any brain cells are really agnostic.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I am satisfied with my absence of belief in a god and have no interest in faith either way. Faith is useless, a fantasy for those who care more.for.daydreams than cold reality. Agnosticism is broadly speaking, a lazy way of compromising with the religious to avoid an argument.

    [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    No, that's what agnostic is. You just don't believe in anything in particular. Atheism is a definite faith in there not being any god.

    But in most settings, people confuse the two, and call them both atheism.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      You're wrong. You cannot simply tell people they are not atheist because you 'muh know better'. 🙄

      Do you believe in Santa clause? If not, is it festive agnosticism that affirms your non-belief?

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Humans invent concepts and then naively believe them to be true. Faith is wilfull ignorance.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        Atheism and its adherents are incredibly dogmatic. It begins with the assertion that there is no God. That alone is dogmatic.

        Atheism is just an evidentiary standard, they lack what you might call 'faith'. Faith is belief in something with a certainty that exceeds the quality of the evidence. If you need 'faith' to justify your belief, an atheist would say it's an unjustified one. Atheists object to the idea of faith, not the idea of a God. It's only dogma when no amount of evidence would change your mind

        Lets take the pastafarians as an example. Would you assert than there is no all-powerful cosmic spaghetti monster? I imagine you or any reasonable person would not remain agnostic about this, and actively disbelieve in a cosmic spaghetti monster. In fact if you believe in the Christian God, you HAVE to disbelive in the spaghetti monster. What if I told you the reason the sky was blue was that demonic goblins were jerking off their ethereal jism into the sky and making it blue? I think almost anyone would outright reject this claim based on a lack of evidence to even consider this. Atheists are simply making the judgement that the evidence for Yahweh, Odin, Allah, Shiva or any other theological deity aren't any better, and believing in such a thing is silly. They just believe in one less of the human Gods than monotheists

        Again, it's not the idea of God that atheists object to, its the evidentiary standards and need for faith they are rejecting. Many (me included) would change their minds if there was better evidence, so it isn't actually dogma

        [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Except that the vast majority of NDEs all line up except for one crucial detail: the deity the person encounters is usually whatever they believe in. This proves that deceptive spirits are running the world. Everything else is always the same. There's always a life review, there's almost always a white light tunnel and visions of the afterlife, a judgement, and if the person will fall for it, sometimes they give completely bullshit reasons to live another life, like "you're here to learn" or "it's all for the greater good". The only difference is which god it takes the form of. And they see dead people, who are also really imposters.

        I'll also say this: Jesus gets literally everything right. I have yet to know of a single person who even comes close. There are plenty of very intelligent, wise people throughout history, but even the best stumble in many ways. And his message is so antithetical to human nature and the universe itself, I can't see some religious fanatics just making it up. Plus, I've had plenty of things communicated to me telepathically well before encountering them in some old book, and it's often things humans in general wouldn't be on board with and the church tries to cover up.

        But all this irrefutable proof aside, the question of existence still remains. It is simply logically impossible for "reality" not to be some kind of illusion. Because the fact is, it manifests from us and not the other way around. Even mainstream science admits that. Everything is perception, and it is not possible for a bunch of atoms to create anything more than the outward appearance of a being having that. Indeed the matter can only exist if there is an observer.

        Now having established that, we get to unmasking just how sinister this world is. Why am I trapped in it? Why is it forced on me, and I have no willful effect on it beyond the faintest synchronicities (and even that could really be operators messing with us)? It shouldn't even be possible, but somehow a gang of evil has managed to imprison me in their simulation, and subject me to never-ending psychological torment. Now that realization is dark and terrifying, and all-encompassing, especially when I do not know how to get out. And I was so brainwashed it took me forever to figure out this simple and obvious fact, even though I question everything. Even when I had doubts about the world I was living in, I still took for granted that there was a "real" world somewhere above all of them.

        Obviously this is all deeply unsettling and depressing. Most people are understandably more than willing to believe the laughable lie that this world is good and even divine. But in the long term I think denial will only sink us further into this mess, however it began. I absolutely refuse to return, or travel to any dedicated afterlife, if I can help it. But no matter what it cannot go on forever. God help us if it can, and he has.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          It is illogical to assume that not believing in something requires faith in its absence.

          If you do not believe that pink flying unicorns exist, it is not faith that affirms your conclusion of the non-existence.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Probability does not equate to certainty.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

            It would be a cult that subscribes to atheism. It doesn't define it.

            [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            Ah, you mean like communism?

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            Very close. It would be more like fascism. The libs are already promoting communism though.

            [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Libtards. Atheism by name, but communist by nature. 🤷

            [–]thoughtcriminal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            It seems more likely most Christians will convert to atheism, as that's already the trend. Catholicism and Islam don't have much in common and it's probably easier to abandon your beliefs than change them.

            Banning a religion like Christianity would be incredibly difficult in the US as it would be wholly unconstitutional on its face. I doubt even the leftoids would fully support it.

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Once they all join forces they will do away with the constitution.

            I'm sure the left secretly would be okay with banning it. They already restrict religious freedom, and aren't fond of the first amendment in general.

            [–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            Congratulations on your succesful bait post

            [–]VulptexVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            But I'm serious

            [–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            k