| ----- | |
| --- 14902435 | |
| How do Atheists explain Our Lady of Guadalupe? | |
| --- 14902771 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| Lady of Guadalupe is a divine image of the Virgin Mary, who appeared in 1531 at the base of an oak tree in the Mexican city of Guadalupe. Atheism does not explain Our Lady. This is a divine miracle. | |
| --- 14902775 | |
| Mass delusion? | |
| Power of suggestion? | |
| --- 14902913 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| Just another embarrassing example of catholic fraud. If the church weren't promoting these gypsy-tier scams, it would be much more respectable. | |
| --- 14903036 | |
| >>14902771 | |
| >don't allow any experts to actually touch the painting and study the material, only let them take photos | |
| >ATHEISTS CAN'T EXPLAIN IT | |
| Wow, what an epic miracle. It's just a picture. | |
| --- 14903072 | |
| >>14902913 | |
| explain how it is a fraud | |
| --- 14903081 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. | |
| What is more likely the laws of nature were suspended for a virgin birth. Or that a Jewish slut would tell a lie? | |
| --- 14903085 | |
| >>14903072 | |
| Because there is 0 empirical evidence for supernaturalism. It just gives people of low agency the illusion of control. | |
| --- 14903101 | |
| >>14903085 | |
| there are also 0 empirical evidence it's not supernatural and the weirdnesses of it are not explained. Like the most of the image doesn't show the use of pigments, how it hasn't decayed over the centuries etc. | |
| --- 14903104 | |
| Why does the creator of existence insist on only revealing himself in the most impotent ways? | |
| --- 14903110 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| you don't have to be an atheist to know that all of that is bullshit | |
| --- 14903116 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| How do cuckolics explain the supernatural events of other religions? | |
| --- 14903122 | |
| >>14903104 | |
| because He hates the arrogant and the powerful, and he reveals Himself to the poor and the sick. If you'd read the Bible you would know this. | |
| --- 14903127 | |
| >>14903122 | |
| >because He hates the arrogant and the powerful, and he reveals Himself to the poor and the sick. If you'd read the Bible you would know this. | |
| How convenient for you, more likely the illiterate and stupid. Just like the deluded bronze age inhabitants of Palestine. | |
| The whole story is pathetic and contemptible, the idea that a human sacrifice of a guy who was supposed to be also god thousands of years ago absolves me of my sins is laughable and pathetic. Primitive Middle eastern scapegoating | |
| --- 14903130 | |
| >>14903122 | |
| >a sodomite abomination kills the children of his faithful in cold blood on his own ground | |
| >manifests his image on a tomato in Guatemala | |
| >TRUST THE PLAN | |
| --- 14903133 | |
| >>14903122 | |
| I dunno, the most common paternal haplogroups today are of some warrior steppe niggers who were taller and stronger than anyone around them. Seems like back then he supported the strong. | |
| --- 14903135 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| >Whoa you mean people make up stories about shit that didn't happen? | |
| Dude if that story came from a Hindu you would dismiss it. | |
| --- 14903138 | |
| >>14903101 | |
| We literally know who painted it, retard. It's not even the only painting from that time that hasn't decayed substantially, and the shit about the pigments is fake news. | |
| --- 14903150 | |
| >>14903127 | |
| >>14903130 | |
| Seethe more future hell fuel | |
| >>14903133 | |
| ? | |
| >>14903138 | |
| And who painted it, you refined genius? | |
| --- 14903153 | |
| >>14903150 | |
| Marcos Cipac de Aquino | |
| --- 14903187 | |
| >>14903153 | |
| Sounds like BS. | |
| >Marcos Cipac de Aquino (June 4, 1517-1572) would have been a Nahuatl Indian and a painter from New Spain in the early years of the conquest of Mexico. According to Fray Francisco de Bustamante in one of his sermons, he referred to the miraculous image of the Virgin painted by "Marcos the Indian" without mentioning his last name. The same name "Marcos Cipac de Aquino" is not recorded in any document or writing from the colonial period (1521-1821). Bernal Díaz del Castillo mentions a "Marcos de Aquino", the indigenous chronicler Juan Bautista mentions a "Marcos Cipac" in his historical annals. Bustamante says "Marcos", and only he associates that mysterious Indian with the image of Guadalupe. It has not even been proven that "Marcos de Aquino" and "Marcos Cipac" are the same, and it has not been proven that he or any of them was the Indian to whom Bustamante was referring. On the other hand, Bustamante's sermon mentioning "Marcos" was known only in 1888. Before that year no one ever mentioned "Marcos" in relation to the Virgin of Guadalupe. Therefore, it is possible that the Indian Marcos did not exist as such | |
| --- 14903191 | |
| >>14903153 | |
| yeah thank you retard | |
| --- 14903193 | |
| >>14903187 | |
| Sounds less like BS than the idea that a painting of Mary made in a contemporary style suddenly appeared in some colonial shithole as a miracle. | |
| --- 14903195 | |
| >>14903193 | |
| I don't give a shit about this debate, I'm not the guy you were arguing with, just pointing out I just googled the stuff you mentioned and it's total bullshit. | |
| --- 14903198 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| not an atheist but | |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia?wprov=sfla1 | |
| Also, it is fact that the current painting WAS painted on the original image so we dont exactly know what original image looked like before the colouring and retouches. | |
| So, weak arguement. | |
| --- 14903204 | |
| >>14903150 | |
| lol | |
| --- 14903207 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| >>14902771 | |
| Number of times Mary appeared in South America before the Catholic Church got there: 0 | |
| --- 14903341 | |
| >>14903207 why would the merciful Virgin Mary appear after some blood lusting demon-worshipping pagans? | |
| --- 14903349 | |
| >>14903341 | |
| Same reason Jesus appears on toast, I guess. | |
| --- 14903429 | |
| >>14903085 | |
| >There's 0 exclusively naturalistic evidence for a supernatural event! | |
| --- 14903435 | |
| >>14903429 | |
| >it's a christians engage in 4D sophistry instead of presenting evidence for their god episode | |
| --- 14903448 | |
| >>14903429 | |
| >there cannot be any evidence for my belief that is better than "it came to me in a dream" | |
| >therefore "it came to me in a dream" is a totally legitimate argument | |
| lmao | |
| absolute state | |
| --- 14903449 | |
| >>14903435 | |
| lol are you what, 14? | |
| --- 14903453 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| They'll say the whole thing was a hoax to get Mexican pagans to convert to Catholicism. | |
| --- 14903460 | |
| >>14903435 | |
| >>14903448 | |
| >Makes an absurd demand | |
| >Doubles down when shown to be absurd | |
| Atheists are not to be taken seriously until they are at least going to be intellectually honest. | |
| --- 14903480 | |
| >>14903460 | |
| >provide me with proof I can verify | |
| >what an absurd demand! | |
| --- 14903482 | |
| >>14903460 | |
| >make up an absurd belief that can only be justified by "it came to me in a dream" | |
| >sperg out when people don't accept "it came to me in a dream" as valid evidence | |
| lmao I love you schizoposters | |
| never take your meds, you marvelous retard | |
| --- 14903491 | |
| >>14903449 | |
| Isn't it dire that one of the greatest insults christians have is accusing their detractors of being immature as if children being able to see through their bullshit isn't a testament against their belief. | |
| --- 14903531 | |
| >>14903104 | |
| Revealing himself to the wrong people could make things worse like how the Israelites started worshipping a pagan diety thinking it was their God before Moses told them to stop or how some Christians abuse certain verses to excuse their unChristian lifestyle. God reveals himself to people who can understand him. | |
| --- 14903535 | |
| >>14903531 | |
| >God reveals himself to people who can understand him. | |
| Like the 3rd world and rustbelt methheads who see his face in toast. GG | |
| --- 14903546 | |
| >>14903491 | |
| you clearly have a Reddit tier knowledge of Christianity since "who are not like children can't enter the kingdom of heaven" and you keep embarrassing yourself demanding scientific proof of what by definition is outside of scientific inquiry (not measurable, not repeatable, etc.) | |
| Science knowledge is a subset of knowledge that limits itself to investigate only what is materialistic and quantifiable, in order to pragmatically maximize its efficacy. | |
| Apart from religion we live immersed in things that are not scientific: beauty, emotions, love, music, poetry, literature, psychology, and even mundane things like the design of your fucking iPhone or the plot of your shitty Netflix series. | |
| Attacking religion saying "it's not scientific" it's like attacking science saying "it's not beautiful". | |
| --- 14903551 | |
| >>14903531 | |
| here the US protestant heretic with political extremism in his heart | |
| --- 14903553 | |
| >>14903546 | |
| Damn bro, still no evidence.... | |
| --- 14903565 | |
| >someone painted Mary on a piece of cloth and its suddenly a miracle | |
| Lol | |
| --- 14903575 | |
| >>14903546 | |
| The problem is Christianity's own perception of their god as personal, benevolent, and all loving with the well-being of humanity in mind which is completely contradictory when observing reality. | |
| On the other hand, I can completely grasp the metaphysical, immaterial essence of say Wotan who expresses himself in artistic inspiration, passion, and reckless furry unconcerned with anything except the aesthetic of the act of self-sacrifice for a higher cause. Can you see why I would require evidence for the former and not the latter? | |
| --- 14903623 | |
| >>14903575 | |
| >Wotan | |
| straight into the garbage bin | |
| >Can you see why I would require evidence for the former and not the latter? | |
| Yes because you're such a spine chilling chud I will repel women for a month just to have talked to you | |
| >reckless furry | |
| Freudian slip I guess ahah | |
| --- 14903631 | |
| >>14903623 | |
| 4/10 | |
| --- 14903639 | |
| >>14902435 (OP) | |
| with a computer, obviously. | |
| --- 14903721 | |
| >>14903341 | |
| Why would an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god need people to travel around the world to spread his word | |
| --- 14904420 | |
| >>14903429 | |
| There's no naturalistic or non-naturalistic evidence, just free association, hypothesis formation, and survival of said hypothesis in the market for production of statements laundered of falsehoods. | |
| Science is just systematic elimination of error, bias, fraud, wishful thinking, and deceit. All supernaturalism is an attempt to preserve an illusion of control from those with insufficient agency to produce control in the absence of it. Abrahamism is just an obvious case that preys on the particularly gullible, like all pseudoscientific doctrines do, through baiting into moral hazard by false promise of freedom from natural, physical, and evolutionary laws of the universe (freedom from responsibility). Same as communism, wokeism, postmodernism, race-denialism. No difference. Heaven/post-scarcity/equality, all the same thing. | |
| --- 14904611 | |
| >>14903721 | |
| To give us the ultimate purpose. | |
| --- 14904887 | |
| >>14903081 | |
| There's a lot of extraordinary evidence for the Tilma being authentic but even if you read all the studies you'd probably still dismiss it anyway. | |
| >>14903135 | |
| Can you name one equivalent of the Tilma in Hinduism? | |