If you're black and atheist, why arent you automatically considered a white supremacist?

[The Devil's Advocate]

There is NOTHING in my belief system that says anything about advocating for the devil. Nothing in the bible either lol






Yea a christian that names himself an advocate for the devil who is supposed to be the christians archenemy?

First off theres no verse in the bible that "thall" shalt not judge. Theres plenty of verses that demonstrate or explicitly say to judge...

Secondly just because I disagree with a position, doesnt mean that I look down on the person that holds said position. Lazy analysis

once again... you're an idiot

obviously you can't read.. because it's very clear in your religion that devil's advocate does NOT mean an advocate for the devil... why would an invisible mythical being need a fukking advocate you dummy


why is a roman catholic position in the church titled a devil's advocate if they don't have it in the religion


Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: in other words.... do not judge people




yeah... you definitely did a lot of skimming



Promotor Fidei


An official of the Roman Congregation of Rites. The office was created by Clement XI, 7 April, 1708. In earlier times the work now undertaken by the Promotor Fidei was entrusted to the Promotor Fiscalis or some consistorial advocate. The Promotor Fidei is also an official of the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics, but his main duty is performed in the processes of beatification and canonization, which are conducted by the Congregation of Rites. It is the special care of the Promoter of the Faith to prevent any rash decisions concerning miracles or virtues of the candidates for the honours of the altar. All documents of beatification and canonization processes must be submitted to his examination, and the difficulties and doubts he raises over the virtues and miracles are laid before the congregation and must be satisfactorily answered before any further steps can be taken in the processes. It is his duty to suggest natural explanations for alleged miracles, and even to bring forward human and selfish motives for deeds that have been accounted heroic virtues. For the examination of witnesses outside of Rome, the promoter formulates the questions and he has the power to appoint sub- promoters to assist him. All the processes for beatification and canonization must be submitted to the promoter under pain of nullity. Owing to his peculiar duty of antagonizing the proofs put forward on behalf of persons proposed for saintly honours, the Promoter of the Faith is commonly referred to, half jocosely, as the devil's advocate.




What does it mean to play devil's advocate?

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

 

[Everythingg]

But in the same breath you're saying that something (god) with consciousness and the ability to decide came from nothing. You saying one makes more sense doesn't prove any point, its just an opinion, with nothing backing it. I think the evidence for life coming from nothing far outweighs the evidence of intelligent design. Does that address it enough for you.

Theres no evidence about life coming from nothing though. There is evidence of life coming from life though so no that doesnt address anything at all. Why do you think the consciousness you have to believe there is no Creator, while I believe there is One, ultimately came from something (the universe, big bang, hydrogen whatever) that does not have consciousness and cannot decide or choose, speak, move one way or another based on preference like we can?

Nah, you havent addressed THAT breh. But I'll address your lame question:

Now I've answered, but you sure like deflecting that rape question. Is there something you want to tell us?

No I woudnt be a murderer or rapist even if I didnt read the bible since I wasnt a rapist, didnt believe in raping, before ever reading the bible myself. And there are many things that I read in the bible, that I dont believe anyways but thats a whole other story. The bigger problem is that all thread, you atheists have been ducking the fact that whites reign supreme in an existence with no Creator. Survival of the fittest and in that, whites are surviving the best right? The way I see it, their countries seem to have their foot on everyone elses neck (though it goes deeper than Im letting on). Also, their reign is bigger than any empire of the past. You can have the OPINION that they were wrong,but your opinion is irrelevant. Since to them, they were and are right. So to an atheist, who is the deciding factor on which side is right and which is wrong?

No matter how many different ways I type this, none of yall answer

 

[Sccit]

OP IS A IGNORANT WEIRDO WHO POSES AS AN ENLIGHTENED DUDE .. GLAD HE GOT HIT WIT THE NEG TRAIN

 

[Everythingg]

It might be better to change the subject from religion to social darwinism.

So it doesnt hurt people's feelings?

I honestly thought about it because one of the very first posts suggested that, but I think that inherently its one in the same. If you're an atheist, how can you have any objective basis for your morality, when you cant see one in nature? Thats pretty much what I've been getting at all thread and havent gotten an answer

once again... you're an idiot

obviously you can't read.. because it's very clear in your religion that devil's advocate does NOT mean an advocate for the devil... why would an invisible mythical being need a fukking advocate you dummy


why is a roman catholic position in the church titled a devil's advocate if they don't have it in the religion


Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: in other words.... do not judge people




yeah... you definitely did a lot of skimming



Promotor Fidei


An official of the Roman Congregation of Rites. The office was created by Clement XI, 7 April, 1708. In earlier times the work now undertaken by the Promotor Fidei was entrusted to the Promotor Fiscalis or some consistorial advocate. The Promotor Fidei is also an official of the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Relics, but his main duty is performed in the processes of beatification and canonization, which are conducted by the Congregation of Rites. It is the special care of the Promoter of the Faith to prevent any rash decisions concerning miracles or virtues of the candidates for the honours of the altar. All documents of beatification and canonization processes must be submitted to his examination, and the difficulties and doubts he raises over the virtues and miracles are laid before the congregation and must be satisfactorily answered before any further steps can be taken in the processes. It is his duty to suggest natural explanations for alleged miracles, and even to bring forward human and selfish motives for deeds that have been accounted heroic virtues. For the examination of witnesses outside of Rome, the promoter formulates the questions and he has the power to appoint sub- promoters to assist him. All the processes for beatification and canonization must be submitted to the promoter under pain of nullity. Owing to his peculiar duty of antagonizing the proofs put forward on behalf of persons proposed for saintly honours, the Promoter of the Faith is commonly referred to, half jocosely, as the devil's advocate.




What does it mean to play devil's advocate?

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.

Again, you're a "christian" who named himself after being an advocate of his supposed enemy

You also keep bringing up the Catholic church but Im not a catholic or christian

 

[YaBoy]

Theres no evidence about life coming from nothing though. There is evidence of life coming from life though so no that doesnt address anything at all. Why do you think the consciousness you have to believe there is no Creator, while I believe there is One, ultimately came from something (the universe, big bang, hydrogen whatever) that does not have consciousness and cannot decide or choose, speak, move one way or another based on preference like we can?

Nah, you havent addressed THAT breh. But I'll address your lame question:

Breh look into abiogenesis. Over a long time, simple molecules came together to form simple bags of chemicals, that over time come together to form simple cells, that over time come together to for multi-cellular organisms, which over time evolve into everything we have today.

I'm not sure how the universe started (& i'm fine with saying that), but at least there's evidence of the big bang such as the universe expanding.

I don't think consciousness if a gift from God or anything either. Its a gift from cooking. Cooking breaks down food so we can get even more energy with far less effort. At that point, we began to evolve greater intelligence/consciousness because our brains/bodies could get so much more energy without the work, so it had excess energy for all the energy-consuming functions of the brain.

Now can you explain how everything has to come from something, but god came from nothing? If god can have no beginning/end, why can't the universe? Why are you allowed to just sidestep logic when it fits you?

No I woudnt be a murderer or rapist even if I didnt read the bible since I wasnt a rapist, didnt believe in raping, before ever reading the bible myself. And there are many things that I read in the bible, that I dont believe anyways but thats a whole other story. The bigger problem is that all thread, you atheists have been ducking the fact that whites reign supreme in an existence with no Creator. Survival of the fittest and in that, whites are surviving the best right? The way I see it, their countries seem to have their foot on everyone elses neck (though it goes deeper than Im letting on). Also, their reign is bigger than any empire of the past. You can have the OPINION that they were wrong,but your opinion is irrelevant. Since to them, they were and are right. So to an atheist, who is the deciding factor on which side is right and which is wrong?

No matter how many different ways I type this, none of yall answer

Breh you are really doing backflips with logic right now

There's no reigning supreme. Leopards "reign supreme" over their prey but they're still critically endangered. & I don't care to do the research right now, but I don't think any current "empire" is the biggest ever. Who are "whites" anyway? We're all homo sapiens, we're all thriving as a species. The concept of survival of the fittest doesn't apply to this situation because there's no possible speciation from this.

The bolded is exactly our point, you had an innate sense of morality without the bible. You seem to be caught up on objective morality. There's no single person or object that defines right from wrong, its the sum of all of our innate morality. Even wild animals show a sense of "morality". You ever seen a deer take care of a baby rabbit? Or a dog giving food to a puppy that isn't it's own? Its called altruism.

Animals will sometimes have the urge to better their group as a whole instead of being selfish. Also, people don't want to fukk rapists/murderers so they got bred out of the gene pool. Early humans needed the social interaction way more than we do now, so we evolved to be more likely to be effective in a social group

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Again, you're a "christian" who named himself after being an advocate of his supposed enemy

You also keep bringing up the Catholic church but Im not a catholic or christian

again it's a saying that has 0 to do with being an advocate of the devil

you're not catholic or christian then we need not be talking because you won't understand what i'm speaking

good day sir

 

[LurkMoar]

So it doesnt hurt people's feelings?

I honestly thought about it because one of the very first posts suggested that, but I think that inherently its one in the same. If you're an atheist, how can you have any objective basis for your morality, when you cant see one in nature? Thats pretty much what I've been getting at all thread and havent gotten an answer



Again, you're a "christian" who named himself after being an advocate of his supposed enemy

You also keep bringing up the Catholic church but Im not a catholic or christian

Wow thays actually a great point breh, i honestly cant refute what you said.

Yea wheres all the a the atheist to answer this?

 

[luciddreamer]

You all put too much into these man made labels and names, what exactly is an atheist, theist, who do you think created these seperatist terms?

Whats the point in arguing over things we can't even fathom and probably never will, just live life with love in your heart, do good and avoid evil, pretty simple and straight forward.

Why people get so offended and worked up when you tell them you dont follow any religion or worship anything of any kind, is beyond me.

 

[Everythingg]

Breh look into abiogenesis. Over a long time, simple molecules came together to form simple bags of chemicals, that over time come together to form simple cells, that over time come together to for multi-cellular organisms, which over time evolve into everything we have today.

I'm not sure how the universe started (& i'm fine with saying that), but at least there's evidence of the big bang such as the universe expanding.

Abiogenesis, to my recollection, has NEVER been observed in nature... And scienists recreating the process in a lab being the only evidence they have, sounds like "intelligent design" to me

Oh and people TELL you theres evidence of the big bang and you believe them. Moses wrote that God talked to him and I believe him... You didnt see the evidence they told you they saw, and I didnt see Moses talk to God. See how we're not so far apart?

Now can you explain how everything has to come from something, but god came from nothing? If god can have no beginning/end, why can't the universe? Why are you allowed to just sidestep logic when it fits you?

I never said EVERYTHING has to come from something. I said that life has to come from life.Theres no problem with the universe existing without beginning/end. But when you say that, and say there was no Creator before the universe, then how do you explain consciousness deriving from that which doesnt have it? It doesnt make sense breh no matter how you slice it..

There's no reigning supreme. Leopards "reign supreme" over their prey but they're still critically endangered. & I don't care to do the research right now, but I don't think any current "empire" is the biggest ever. Who are "whites" anyway? We're all homo sapiens, we're all thriving as a species. The concept of survival of the fittest doesn't apply to this situation because there's no possible speciation from this.

Im sure the reason they're endangered is because a higher species (humans) messed with them and/or their environment which eventually harmed them..And yes, the cacs have the biggest empire in human history since all past empires barely ruled past one continent while cacs today rule over several (economically not literally)... Once humanity split themselves into different factions based on "race" or nationality, then yes survival of the fittest could absolutely be applied. Especially since these different factions are competing for limited (and I use this word loosely) resources... Again, yall can play dumb all yall want it fits...

And now you dont know what a cac is?

The bolded is exactly our point, you had an innate sense of morality without the bible.

Heres the problem. My belief is this innante sense of morality came from the Creator. The atheist? I've been getting the run around all thread lol

 

[Everythingg]

again it's a saying that has 0 to do with being an advocate of the devil

You dont have to keep repeating it. I know cacs tell you it means something else, and that makes you feel comfortable about naming yourself an advocate for the devil.. I can dig that. But I'd NEVER name myself A pedophile's advocate just because a cac tells me a different definition of the phrase.. I'd stay away from it DESPITE the cacs giving me a different definition. You do you though

you're not catholic or christian then we need not be talking because you won't understand what i'm speaking

good day sir

Despite a difference in opinion, same to you breh

 

[Everythingg]

You all put too much into these man made labels and names, what exactly is an atheist, theist, who do you think created these seperatist terms?

Whats the point in arguing over things we can't even fathom and probably never will, just live life with love in your heart, do good and avoid evil, pretty simple and straight forward.

Why people get so offended and worked up when you tell them you dont follow any religion or worship anything of any kind, is beyond me.

Maybe you're speaking in general and not about me the OP, because I dont get "offended" or mad that people see things differently

 

[YaBoy]

Abiogenesis, to my recollection, has NEVER been observed in nature... And scienists recreating the process in a lab being the only evidence they have, sounds like "intelligent design" to me

Scientists can create clouds in a lab too, that doesn't mean that clouds don't occur naturally.

Oh and people TELL you theres evidence of the big bang and you believe them. Moses wrote that God talked to him and I believe him... You didnt see the evidence they told you they saw, and I didnt see Moses talk to God. See how we're not so far apart?

Breh, you can go read several peer reviewed scientific journals, that show exactly how their data was obtained, what assumptions they took, etc. You can google the evidence, its out there. Theres no proof of Moses talking to God, outside of the bible. The bible is the claim, not the proof. & you're already saying the big bang is feasible if everything doesn't have to come from something \/ \/ \/ \/

I never said EVERYTHING has to come from something. I said that life has to come from life.Theres no problem with the universe existing without beginning/end. But when you say that, and say there was no Creator before the universe, then how do you explain consciousness deriving from that which doesnt have it? It doesnt make sense breh no matter how you slice it..

Why didn't you quote or respond to the point about consciousness being an evolutionary byproduct? Nothing about consciousness suggests it must be designed by another conscious being
You keep posing the question, how does consciousness arise without a conscious creator? But you've never explained why consciousness needs a conscious creator in the first place
& are you saying you need a creator for life in general or only consciousness?

Im sure the reason they're endangered is because a higher species (humans) messed with them and/or their environment which eventually harmed them..And yes, the cacs have the biggest empire in human history since all past empires barely ruled past one continent while cacs today rule over several (economically not literally)... Once humanity split themselves into different factions based on "race" or nationality, then yes survival of the fittest could absolutely be applied. Especially since these different factions are competing for limited (and I use this word loosely) resources... Again, yall can play dumb all yall want it fits...

And now you dont know what a cac is?

The point is if this "superior" species is almost extinct, then what is "superiority" really if you're dying? And you're acting like there's a giant monolithic cac empire, but there's different groups of people controlling different shyt. Your saying cacs are arbitrarily superior anyway; they're a minority globally, other races are superior in numbers.
Evolution doesn't react to something as arbitrary a race & even if it did, there hasn't been enough time for any effects of it to be apparent. Survival of the fittest doesn't work in this context because its an aspect of evolution. There needs to be something that forces a split in a species so great that speciation occurs. Mixed babies are born everyday, that shyts not happening. Humans are 99.999999% the same biologically, race is just a social construct. We haven't "split" significantly enough to compete among eachother in well defined groups.

Heres the problem. My belief is this innante sense of morality came from the Creator. The atheist? I've been getting the run around all thread lol

I just explained how this innate sense is an evolutionary byproduct
Once again, why didn't you quote/respond to that part? You keep ducking my points

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

You dont have to keep repeating it. I know cacs tell you it means something else, and that makes you feel comfortable about naming yourself an advocate for the devil.. I can dig that. But I'd NEVER name myself A pedophile's advocate just because a cac tells me a different definition of the phrase.. I'd stay away from it DESPITE the cacs giving me a different definition. You do you though









Despite a difference in opinion, same to you breh

Use cac English but try to tell us you won't accept the definitions of said language brehs

 

[Afro]

OP putting in work



I'll bite though.

"moral code" or "common sense" is innate since God made us.

With that being said, as the person grows up, this "sense" is modifed by their environment. That is why some folks feel more guilty about things than others.

In a religious household, it would be strengthened. But Modern day society (being a dumber down version of Christianity) uses the basics from the religious texts to ensure that life can function just enough to go on.

So atheists who follow a "moral code" are following a loose leaf basic dumbed down version of God's teachings and refuse to admit it.

Best shot

 

[Ghost Utmost]

Sorry can't read all this.

So.

We have to believe in an afterlife to make ourselves feel better about white people conquering the globe?

If this is such an issue then we have to like build some buildings and and unite and junk. Ya know. Do something. Developing an alternate Universe in our minds where we will someday be happy isn't the solution Breh.