/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Japan! Fuck Hai!

-oishi so!
-sashimi ?
-ie, yaki akachan...umai

>>3368977
This is what atheism leads to.

kawaii desu nee

>>3369112
Shish-ka-babies?

>>3369118
>>3369055
Sick fucks.

>>3369112

Actually, assuming that those really are Japanese Soldiers (they could be soldiers from some other asian country), this is what god Emperor worship leads to.

Francois is a common Japanese surname.

>>3369160
"Sir, the babies are Xenos."
"Good job, SPEESH MAHRINES"

>>3369203

SPAAHS MAHREENS, GET THE JOB DONE, and now you have cholera.

DID SOMEONE SAY GOD EMPEROR? I THINK I HEARD SOMEONE SAY GOD EMPEROR.

>>3369220
Xenos?

XENO SCUM EVERYONE KILL THEM!!!

>this is what god Emperor worship leads to.
No this is what Japanese culture leads to.

>>3369328
Emperors lead to all kinds of drama and faggotry China's was killing of themselves for 5000 yrs until they stopped the Emperor crap

>>3369366
The reason you hear so much about civil wars is because unlike other nations China is very rarely invaded by foreign powers.

Whoah. That was a crazy looking abortion.

>>3369375

Or maybe the fact that it houses a large amount of groups which have their own culture. And some of these groups hate each other thus starting conflict.

>>3369160
They worshiped a human; atheists worship humanity.

Imperial Japanese army

>>3369375
>China is rarely invaded by foreign powers
>Japan, Mongols, British

I don't know, they've been invaded quite a lot in the lest millennium.

>>3369522
That's what they get for making such delicious food and fireworks.

>>3369490
Atheists just means you don't worship a god. Doesn't mean you worship anything else.

If the Japanese worshipped the Emperor as a God, they weren't atheists.


Faggot.

>>3369490
>atheists worship humanity.

Wouldn't the worship of humanity be humanism instead?

>>3369160

It all makes sense now.

>>3369577
Butthurt atheist denies the fact that atheists have murdered hundred of millions of people in the last century and that this is undeniable proof of the fact that they ahve 0 morals...........

/jp/ should ban Chinese.

>>3369618
Fun fact: More people have been killed by religious people than atheist people!

Atomic bomb

>>3368977
Reported.

>>3369700
>Honest-to-god-fearing American weapon yessir

>>3369675
>Fun fact: More people have been killed by religious people than atheist people!

Where's the proof?
65+ million killed by Hitler
100+ million killed by Stalin
100+ million killed by Mao
Pol Pot and hundreds of other atheists slaughtered millions...

>>3369618
You better be a troll. Regardless, thread reported

>>3369675
There have been more people of faith than atheists, so this is not surprising. Faith is a natural human experience that every mentally healthy human has, like love and kindness.

Atheism is an invention of the 19th century. It's not coincidental that many mental illnesses were 'discovered' around the same time as the ideology of atheism was being invented. Your average atheist would say that atheism has always existed, but this is just historical revisionism and anachronism. It's kind of like calling the ancient Greeks 'homosexual', when no such concept of 'homosexuality' existed in ancient Greece. It was completely foreign to them. It's also like 'rationality' and 'individuality' in Eastern culture. Those are Western ideas, with no basis in Oriental culture.

×100+ million killed by Stalin
×100+ million killed by Mao
No!
200+ million killed by Stalin
800+ million killed by Mao

/jp/'s moderator is very useless.

Well, for one, most of the Germans under Hitler were Christian, as was Hitler himself.

And there's certainly been more than 400 million killed in wars etc by religious people all the way back in history.

>>3369715
Are you trying to imply Hitler was atheist?

>>3369715
Hitler was a christian, though it really is pointless to talk about who killed the most, when the reason for WHY they did it is what matters. The people you're mentioning didn't do what they did BECAUSE they where atheists. There is no atheist bible commanding them to kill. There are religious texts ordering their followers to kill, and many millions have died because of it.

Hitler was more of a pagan than a Christian.

>>3369715
Some those were Christian.

What he's saying is true simply because you know, a lot more religious people. It's like saying sane people killed more people than madmen.

>>3369715
This is a very good point. But then again, apostles of the Communist religion are something of an exception among atheists.

>>3369728
>It's not coincidental that many mental illnesses were 'discovered' around the same time as the ideology of atheism was being invented
...Because the accepted explanation for mental illness up to that point was usually "LOL DEMONIC POSSESSION".

>>3369715
Hitler and Stalin did have modern weapons though, and could very easily kill more people than the religious people several hundred years before, so comparing numbers like that is not really "fair".

>>3369760
It's just as valid as saying one has rotten brain juice, which is basically what we all believe now.

>>3369753
This is very true; I was stating a statement that, while was completely accurate, was not relevant to any reasonable standard of judgement. Well spotted.

>>3369728
That post was stupid, and you're stupid for writing it.

>>3369770
There was no atheism before the 19th century. Before then, 'atheist' referred to those who didn't believe in your God. The ideology we now call 'atheism' is relatively new.

>>3369780
Atheism is not an ideology and you know it.

>>3369780
That wasn't the part that was mindnumbingly stupid.

>>3369785
What then? The part where I said faith is natural. Atheists also have faith, or else they wouldn't believe what they believe.

>>3369796
So you're using 'faith' as a synonym for simply 'belief'? Then why say things like
>There have been more people of faith than atheists

>>3369728
> It's not coincidental that many mental illnesses were 'discovered' around the same time as the ideology of atheism was being invented.

Yes, because we discovered the scientific method, dragged our sorry asses out of the dark ages, and as a consequence, realized that god worship is pretty much a mental disease of its own.

There was certainly atheism (and agnosticism) before the 19th century, btw. It's not revisionism or anything of the sort. World history is not exclusively the history of white dudes in Europe. (Wait, aren't we posting on /jp/? Shouldn't this be obvious?)

>>3369796
What do you mean atheists have faith? You probably mean that atheists supposedly "believe" that there is no god. But that is false. I'm an atheist, and I do not BELIEVE that NO god exists. I am unconvinced that any specific religion has gotten it right, but I don't actively think that there is no kind of supernatural force at all. I am still an atheist though because I lack a positive belief in a god. I neither assume that a god exist nor doesn't exist. There is no belief involved.

>>3369808
Fucking atheists, belief in 2D gods is not a mental disease.

>>3369822
Wouldn't be much of a god if it has less dimensions than the believer.

>>3369780
How is atheism, the lack of belief in a god, a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions (to quote Wikipedia's article on "ideology")

>>3369818
That's a nice semantic trick you have there, but the fact of the matter is you have come to a conclusion about a metaphysical question which no one has a certain answer to.

>>3369818
Then you are technically agnostic, not atheist. (Most people don't make the distinction, though.)

>>3369796
>when no such concept of 'homosexuality' existed in ancient Greece.

The concept of homosexuality, a sexual and romantic relationship between two equal adult males, most certainly did exist in ancient Greece, and was not considered kindly. It was viewed as very distinctly different from the normal practiced pederastic relationship.

>>3369831
My faith empowers her.

>>3369835
Only in the same way that I've come to a conclusion about the pressing metaphysical question of the existence of the invisible elephant in my closet.

Calling non-belief in something "faith" on the same level as belief in something is the semantic trick here.

>>3369835
Nope, he has come to a conclusion about an *epistemological* question: Should I believe in God?

>>3369837
The definition of the weakest sort of atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in a god.
I lack a positive belief in a god. Some call this weak atheism, or agnostic atheism.

>>3369844
So, do you have faith that there is no such a thing as Zeus and the other Greek Gods?

>>3369844
Excuse me, do you know what 'epistemology' means? Because I don't think you know what it means.

/jp/ - pseudointellectuals.

>>3369854
No, I do not. I simply do not believe in these gods, so I go about my daily life in pretty much exactly the way as I would if I actively disbelieved in them (whatever that means).

>>3369835
It's not semantics.
Lack of belief in a god is not at all the same as belief in no god. One of them is a positive belief, the other is not.

>>3369843
Yes, believing in the non-existence of silly things in your closet is also called faith, faith in the correct operation of your senses. It's something we all take for granted, but, our senses are fallible. This may come as a surprise.

>>3369835
Stop being stupid. The point was exactly that he has NOT come to a conclusion because he doesn't know, and he knows that he doesn't know. As long as he doesn't know he won't hold a belief.

>>3369855
Theory of knowledge. Beliefs could be considered a superset of knowledge. If you really want to be so strict, you can reformulate the question: do I know that this God fellow exists? Essentially the same question.

>>3369863
Kinda makes the original distinction between "people of faith" and "atheists" pretty meaningless, doesn't it

>>3369864
There's a lot of things he doesn't know, such as the existence of the external world. He's not going to be neutral about that, because it'll undermine his belief.

>>3369881
>his belief.
What belief exactly? The "belief" which has just been explained he doesn't have?
>external world
What the hell is that?

don't mind me

>>3369880
The funny thing about atheists is that they don't know that they believe. Unfortunately for them it's the wrong belief. So, no, it doesn't make it meaningless. People of faith know that they have faith, faith in God; atheists have faith in God's non-existence.

>>3369890
Are you a sceptic? A solipsist?

>>3369890
His belief that he doesn't have a belief.

>>3369877
About a metaphysical entity...

>>3369892
>atheists have faith in God's non-existence.

it has already been pointed out several times how and why this is wrong. Just gtfo. You're being too stupid even for 4chan standards.

>>3369892
So you're using 'people of faith' as a synonym for 'theist'. Why not just write what you mean?

>>3369899
I guess you could say I'm a skeptic. More skeptical than most.

>>3369904
Pointed out where? All I see is the same assertion that "but atheists don't BELIEVE." Simply saying that you don't believe in something doesn't mean that you don't believe anything. Of course, you believe in something: the reliability of human senses, the logical validity of science, etc. You can't prove it, though, which is ok. A lot of us accept that we can't know everything.

>>3369918
I really don't know whether to call this semantics or just plain nitpicking.

>>3369925
Yes, saying you can't prove what you believe is nitpicking.

>>3369918
If atheists actually believed in logical validity of science, or understood it, for that matter, they'd be agnostics.

>>3369918
Are you trying to make the most dumb post in the thread on purpose? What you're talking about has nothing to do with the discussion. We're talking about faith/belief in a GOD. Not about faith in anything else that has nothing to do with this.

>>3369936
We're discussing atheism's belief that it has no belief.

>>3369933
Agnosticism means that it is impossible to know about the existence of god. The cannot->doesn't extension of the definition is an attempt by theists to split the atheist community; in its weaker form it's actually functionally identical to atheism.

>>3369942
Now you're just being silly. Go away you troll.

>>3369952
This is what you're saying. You have no belief, which is still a belief since it's neither justified nor true.

>>3369899
If you can present an argument for solipsism that is both difficult to assail and not narcissistic, I'll give it a wack.

The problem, I speculate, people have with "belief in [g]od" is that there is no functional disassociation between deity and accompanying religion. If we are to limit the existence in God to human beliefs exclusively, they arose to solve the same problem, serve the same purpose, but diverged at some un-mappable point and now only share supplemental roles. If we expand that definition to include actual existence, there is an even greater indication of logical disconnect.

Regardless, of my own beliefs, I am not against believing in the existence of a [G]od, but I can not attach human principles, virtue or vice, to such a creature without recoiling in disgust to worship such a thing.

Butthurt Chinks abound

>>3369960
That's one way to look at it. That every statement requires a yes/no answer, and that both answers are taken on "faith". I honestly can't remember where this argument started, but it was probably someone claiming atheists are hypocrites for having FAITH that they're not hooked to the Matrix. Which really is semantics in a normal discussion ("normal" in this case being one that takes place anywhere outside a metaphysics classroom) where faith refers specifically to belief in unproven/unprovable beings.

Exactly correct or not, I think it's reasonable to say that something doesn't exist until it's been proven to. Without having to take that statement on faith.

>>3369949
No, atheism is an attempt to force the skeptic community into a false dichotomy of "god does/doesn't exist".

The weaker form of atheism is actually agnostic in principles, they're just misguided into making god the crucial point of their ideology. If they really didn't believe, as they claim, they simply wouldn't care for things that cannot be observed.

>>3370028
>they're just misguided into making god the crucial point of their ideology.
Yeah, I don't do that.

>>3370028
Agnosticism is a 19th-century term invented by a guy who didn't want to be called an atheist. The only uses this term has are in the strong sense ("God's existence is unknowable") and as a theist excuse to discredit the literally ancient term "atheism" by redefining it to mean active denial instead of the simple disbelief it's meant for the past two thousand years.

I wish OP wasn't an edit because that's a tasty looking baby and I'm getting awfully hungry

>>3369217

If japan was a Chaos Speeesh Mareens Chapter,

which god would they most likely swear their absolute loyalty to?

I'd say Khorne.

pic related. collecting skulls for the skull throne.