Can we get a thread defending Christianity from Atheism? Would be very useful. God bless

...

Sure wish the mods would do something about all of these off-topic posts.

Diversity is our strength.

Anyway, atheists are fools, a dwindling minority busy aborting and sodomizing themselves out of existence. There's no need to defend Christianity from them. They're impotent and futile. They can't even have let alone raise children. The only time atheists ever posed a threat to Christendom was in the 20th century with Marxism. Marxists managed to take over much of the world and kill Christians by the tens of millions, but that gong show eventually withered and died, and atheists scattered to the wind, and in the grand scheme of things they accomplished nothing. Atheists today have absolutely nothing to come at us with. They have no ideas anymore. They have no unity. They've fallen back into cancerous, self-destructive, unsustainable liberalism and will grow increasing irrelevant except in moral backwaters about to be eclipsed by the crescent moon like Sweden. New Atheism imploded spectacularly. Whatever great enemy that Satan decides to erect in the 21st and 22nd centuries, it will certainly not be atheist in character. That horse simply isn't running any races anymore. Good riddance.

Posting some vids from a former Atheist:

God, Science, and Atheism

Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

...

...

No Orthodox poster ever said that.

The bishops will agree whenever the Holy Spirit deems it necessary to guide them to it.

Back to your empty papist churches!

Attached: empty-church.jpg (643x342, 33.95K)

I'm not even Apostolic. The thread is almost completely unrelated to the OP.

OP here, I cannot believe the Orthobros and Catholics found a way to somehow derail this thread to INFIGHTING. We should all unite as Christendom to fight enemies who don't even understand the Lord and savior we love.

Well,

There's more points, but I've literally just woke up. Will post more later.

Amen, dude. I'm so tired of watching these pissing matches between denominations. Its very prideful.

user…don't do it bro

Attached: Redirect.jpg (199x285, 23.26K)

Tip it harder. Maybe someone may care.

But hey, supernatural stuff is all bunk :^)

apparently measuring something incoporal and beyond natural philosophy is totally something that can be done guys :^)

Attached: e438d87b8d1d242e4364608ade5508c5bd44525cd2e4d22d6ba9ec6b2449ee05.jpg (700x1024, 51.25K)

Wasting your time even asking this. The point user made was that religion was (and is and ever will be) the status quo for mankind, and anything else is a deviation.
You are almost coming as this from the "What if people with schizophrenia are the true realists, and everyone else is insane, man!?" angle.

If you are implying that because theists are/can be immoral in spite of a belief in absolute or objective morality, then you aren't doing it right. This would be akin to saying that because someone breaks the law, then no laws exist anywhere, which is self-defeating.
Our contention is that atheists still have not satisfactorily answered where they get their morals from.

Too vague to even get into. Pick something more concrete and then we'll try again.
As a matter of fact people in the atheistic, materialistic, progressive West are utterly miserable. Trying to remove God and cultural roots, and trying to replace it with technology and consumer goods has done nothing for them but make them despondent, naive and suicidal. If you live a life of boredom, frustration and despair, and with nothing to show for it, no kids, no great achievements, then what is the point in living for an additional 20-40 years?
Also
top lel. Atheists are just as herd-minded as religious people. You need only look and see how atheism has utterly failed to produce the utopian fruits it once believed that it could (let alone teaching people to """think"""), and has also absolutely failed to provide the hard and fast answers that absolutist systems like Christianity and Islam offer. (As it turns out, most people aren't too keen on being told that they are accidents of circumstance and whose existence is really futile.)
At least prayer, as an intellectual/voluntary act, provides comfort to the individual. Atheism offers nothing in response to it except retail therapy and cognitive dissonance.

I'm noticing a pattern here.

Attached: csdfsdaf.png (750x627, 466.88K)

Sauce?

I swear if you give me 1900's shit…

Also, why should I care?

And yeah, the major fields of science were made by religious people, but now that they're infinitely more advanced they've become majority atheistic. It's more like an evolution than the stealing of ideas.

Attached: Sure thing.jpg (3600x2732, 3.48M)

Are you a Christian? I can't really tell, but I wanted to ask you something.

I am a Christian (different ID as I'm on a different computer).
What would you like to ask?

If I have no kids and no great achievements in life but have great faith in Christ, is such life "okay"? God wouldn't see me as a failure, right?
I'm kind of struggling a lot.

Sorry that you wrote all that, but my copied and altered post was just to show the ridiculousness of . I don't literally mean most of what I said. Guess I should have clarified it as sarcasm. I was trying to make it sound equal parts ridiculous and similar yet opposite.

I didn't mean any of the first, second, or third section (though maybe a case could be made for the third).

Responding to your response to the last part:

Not sure what you think atheism is, but in reality it's just a lack of a belief in god(s). There's nothing else necessarily attached. No utopia, no ideals, no correct governing system. Just a disbelief.

Why is it bad that it doesn't provide fast absolutist answers?

They aren't told that and they don't have to necessarily think that to be an atheist. I'm a materialist "Darwinian" atheist and I find more than enough meaning in my own life to justify my existence.

As do drugs… Why can't rational thought provide enough comfort?

Kek, I just randomly thought of that spell writing that post. There's probably a similar red one somewhere, but my main color is black with a little blue here and there.

Attached: phoenix-wright-objection.jpg (550x404, 31.45K)

Absolutely not. The Lord isn't a judge of persons. He won't judge you more harshly or love you any less because you haven't found a cure for cancer or had dozens of children. What matters is your devotion to Him, and your persistence in that devotion. When Our Lord was born, he was visited by the wise men and the shepherds, which is to say the very learned and accomplished, and the simple and the outcast. Do you think that it mattered to Him? What matters is that they came to Him and adored Him, and that is as true today for you as it was then for them. Think also of the ways that you contribute to the lives of others, as a witness to the faith, and how you, through whatever weaknesses or strengths you have, can help to bring the Gospel to them by your example.
If you keep going along this path your life won't be "OK", it will be perfect.

Never, ever, ever give up. The struggle is real and there are many points in life which will test us, but we must never submit to them.
Pray for strength and the will to keep going, and also for Him to show you His plan for you. Don't pray for your burden to be lightened, but for broader shoulders to bear it upon. God bless you!

Thank you so much. God bless you.

I guessed that, don't worry about it.

I know. Part of the issue is that people like to pretend that it has all of these features and more.

Because as we are coming to find out, relativism is corrosive.

That's true, and I was being heavy handed.

But you gave yourself that meaning, it is yours, no one else's. This might be enough for some people but for most it means an utter detachment from their environment, and as social creatures, it is insufficient. A lot of theists and secularists (without a trace of self-reflection or irony) mock the idea of "You're just religious because your family is" and for many this will likely be true, and they won't be as devoted as someone who has actually looked into what their faith really means, but the point is that your parents saw faith as something worthy enough to be given to you as a precious gift. If nothing else, it is a connection to your family, to your culture, it is a tradition to belong to even if, as I say, you just end up being a Sunday Catholic.
You don't get this same involvement if you just give yourself meaning. Giving yourself meaning just seems like a Munchausen trilemma, of trying to pull yourself out of quicksand by pulling your by pulling your hair.
Now, in your life you will probably meet others who gave themselves that meaning, and you can form a relationship based on it, but you both came to it convergently, and not as something that was "given" you. You made it, for you, and he/she made it for him/herself. Religion (by literal definition) is social, other-minded and transcendent. It is shared. Existentialism cannot be shared by its very nature.

Drugs are a bad example, given their mind-altering, destructive and ultimately unfulfilling nature. In fact, comparing it to materialism might not be such a bad parallel after all.
I personally can't answer "why" it isn't enough other than to say that, from what I observe and read about society around me, it is simply not enough. Rational thought which is not grafted onto or into a larger metaphysical framework seems to be a dead-end for most people. Without God or something like It, you simply end up with depressive realism.

God bless you too, user.

Relativism can be negative for society in some cases, which is why we generally evolved to agree with common goals and rules, but I don't see how unchangeable absolutist beliefs are any better than complete relativism. What if you are wrong about those "absolutes"? You could never admit it in an absolutist ideology. At least if you are somewhat relatavistic you can form new ideas and morals, improving yourself as time goes along and we gain a better understanding of things.

By my own life I meant all of my experiences, including social experiences.

Because their parents did so as well, ad infinitum? I know from experience the feeling of being part of something larger than just myself, and having that to rely on in tough times, and I'm not saying that all people can function just fine without that reliance, but a lot of people can, but are too indoctrinated to even have an objective view of the evidence.

But it can. It can't be directly shared, but it can be indirectly shared. Enough to satisfy myself and millions of others. Other people give my life meaning too. I agree that I can't solely give myself meaning.

You seem to be saying that you need some divine 100% personal link to other people to truly have meaning, but meaning is what makes a person satisfied and truly happy, and for me and millions of others a 100% personal divine link isn't required.

Yeah, I admit drugs were a bad example on my part.

I personally think most people have that opinion because they have no objective stance on the subject. They can't really put themselves into an atheists shoes without denying their own religion. I think so because I and almost every other post-christian atheist I know held the same opinions.
Again, I'm sure some people need to have religion as a crutch, but I doubt a majority of people.

As much as I might risk sinking my own argument, right and wrong aren't intrinsically important for absolutism. Take the moral absolutism of the Salafists and Wahhabbis, for example.
I'd also argue relativism is inherently destructive. Uncertainty about an issue is one thing. Refusing to accept that there can be certainty is another. The latter is the position we find ourselves in, when most of the cultural elite in the West simply do not accept moral "nationalism" (ie. "these are our peculiar, inherited customs, and we are happy with them and will defend them") let alone supremacism ("our way is the right, the best and the only way"). This stagnation and cowardice is where aggressive absolutist values (whether political or religious) step into the void.
Morals are eternal though, and the "March of Time" doesn't change that. To paraphase Chesterton, an idea being true 1,000 years ago but not today is just as ridiculous as saying it was true on Sunday but not on Thursday, or at lunch time but not at supper. I would also not call this relativism but simply organic change.

I know, but it's still yours. This can't translate to another person.

Yes, ad infinitum. Never underestimate the importance of that lineage. Deep roots are a good thing, and most important to note is that tradition, like roots, grow and develop, but slowly and organically, but never alter substance (i.e. morals).
Sure. There will be people who will flout convention. Even in Europe 800 years ago when the Papacy was it its zenith in terms of power and influence, there would still have been atheists.

But religion can be *directly* shared by others, which is its drawing point. It is a shared inheritance, whether you were born to it or came to it at the end of your life. This is why I made the distinction that you could meet someone who believes what you do, but you both provided that for yourself, based on direct personal and interpersonal experience. If I meet another Catholic, we are on no uncertain terms as to what our shared meaning in life is. Even if I never met another Catholic, our direct personal meaning would be the same.
I'm not saying that a divine personal link is the only meaning, just that it's the most valid and enduring. If you die, your meaning dies with you, regardless of whether you have kids or not, and the wheel has to be reinvented for them. If I die, my kids receive the faith as an inheritance.

Speaking as a post-atheist Christian I think I might know whereof I speak on this, because that is the conclusion that I came to. It wasn't even a reference to how Christians see atheists but, from personal experience, how a lot of atheists see themselves. The whole, passive, blackpill of "Tfw too smart for religion" thing really easily transforms into "tfw too smart for anthing" and ends up just a piece of disaffected, intellectual (and practical) paralysis.

Don't be mistaken, it's a crutch for everybody. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need it at all. That's what Salvation is all about.

I'll show you mine once you show me observable physical evidence of dark matter. No theoretical or mathematical proofs, gimme real evidence. :^)

Welcome to the religion of scientism. Science!™ of the modern age isn't based on evidence but repeated theoreticals and massive money laundering circle jerks.

Absolutely disgusting. We've actually regressed, but hey whatever makes you feel better.

Attached: bab507a6fe10832017c9aeda0acb73ba2bf24a0f7c5c2819c7aa950a3c73794e.png (869x768, 370.15K)

Thanks for the in depth response.

I'll think about your position and I hope you take some time to consider mine. I'd respond, but were getting to blog post levels now.

If you have anything specific (and care enough) I'll respond to it.

Does more advanced mean more unreliable? Entire fields have been found to be worse than chance as to whether their claimed findings are replicable.

No problem. Thank you for the discussion.
God bless you.

Galaxies and stars rotating in ways only possible if there was some sort of mass attracting them. That mass seems to be impossible to detect directly, but the influence it has on stars and galaxies is detectable.

I'm gonna need some ketchup for that bullshit pie.

REGRESSED?… You can't be serious. You could try to argue that we've morally regressed, but how the winnie the pooh have we scientifically regressed? Get off your PC, winnie the pooh off to the woods, tear off your clothes and throw down everything modern, then after living in your own shit (if you could) for 20 years, tell me we've regressed scientifically.

Attached: business-monkey-suit-760x428.jpg (760x428, 46.68K)

You mean extremely new and under-researched fields that are waiting for new discoveries or instruments? Which fields are you referring to?

Nice phrasing. You mean it is impossible to detect, as it can't be observed period and again entirely theoretical. No evidence. And it is "believed" to exert a gravitational force, but the evidences for unknown gravity sources are often cherry picked and thin; for every proof there are five more that disprove it.

We've clearly regressed because scientism is the mainstay and people are accepting claims without evidence; dark matter for instance.

Another great point OP

No… It's detectable indirectly, not impossible to detect. That makes it not entirely theoretical.

Source? Or are you just saying what you hope is true?

You still have to support your attack against the dark matter hypothesis. But what other "unsupported" claims are you talking about?

These are unscientific words.

You're right.
How about: "The best guess we have is that there is some unseen mass causing the rotation of these galaxies around what we see as nothing." ?

Amusing.
And what's the likelihood that something else is dectected and then misconstrued due to not knowing the answer and wanting a specific one?

Find your own sources Skippy, you can't claim that something is real without evidence when it's part of the natural observable universe, it has to be detectable directly and observed; otherwise it is a myth. But I'll be generous, using critical thinking, reread over scientism papers purporting dark matter to be true and you'll maybe realize how insane andMayne magical it is. Magic invisible Space matter.

Think hard about the ramifications of dark matter being proven to be false tomorrow :^)
Other claims rely on an unseen, unobservable magic space matter to work… I wonder… and besides that:

Attached: 200w.gif (200x87, 1.36M)

That's just the best guess astrophysicists can make. It could be that something detectable is producing that effect, but as far as they know, it's not anything detectable.

Why would they want the specific answer of dark matter over another hypothesis?

Kek, spoken like a true bullshitter. I'm not going to find your sources for you.

No it doesn't… Indirect observation is reliably used in all related fields of science.

Scientists would admit they're wrong and keep working on trying to find the right answer…

Wait… great. You're a flat earther aren't you? Oh boy. This is going to be interesting.

So what? Space, stars, black holes and shit is all some giant conspiracy? Please elaborate.

Extremely un-evidenced theoretical hypotheses maybe.

...

Daily reminder Hitler wasn't Christian, but an occultist.

Amen. Luckily in the next half a century, Christians would out breed most of the lost cause millennial's. HOWEVER, I can't say I still have much hope for the world, or for western country's, as of now. That might be a black pill speaking though.

You're not going to have anyone take you serious here if you're going to keep reddit spacing like a damn faggot.

Attached: dilbert.PNG (479x318, 192.06K)

yeah with the pope ;p

Someone didn't learn the basics of natural philosophy. Revisit the four universal forces and think hard about what's missing in cosmology. It's something that can pull and push things and explain other massive discrepancies in our understanding of the universe, but hey, whatever.
Don't make me laugh, they're dogma to such is practically unbreakable
MAGIC INVISIBLE SPACE MATTER

Attached: 9e6044102dee494db8bcd0c1aec0fd1a28065b1c65d256b812442e2abbdfd4a4.jpg (480x679, 34.97K)

I give you 3/10 because I also have a mono black deck but since dimir is anti-fun you get gulag.

Saaaaaaauuuuuucee??? Jesus christ dude, how much of a conspiratard are you? Scientists admit their wrong all the time. That's why we have innovation and the betterment of our lives and not stagnation.

They have to rely on dark matter because that apparently is the only available working hypothesis. Simple calculations show that the gravity stars collectively produce is not enough to form galaxies, yet we have galaxies. There is no solid evidence that dark matter actually doesn't exist, but you can keep hoping. Or maybe you'd like to grow a spine and provide some?

Fine, here's my sources, now provide yours:
-arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0108/0108319.pdf
Source:
-indiana.edu/~fluid/paper/HMW15.pdf
-spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1506a.pdf

and you should already know that basic reasoning is often wrong.

If you want direct proof I would recommend going back and finishing highschool, moving off to college, getting a PHD in astrophysics, and finding out for yourself. I'm content to rely on the work that can be replicated by new upcoming scientists over and over again.

You seem to think that science is some sort of make-something-up-once-and-it's-good set of explanations that are then fed to the world by a source on high, but every experiment and paper can be reproduced by new unbiased scientists that actually have everything to gain if they can prove older theories wrong. Science is a self correcting process, unlike absolutist religion.

Attached: Scientific_monkey-620x350.jpg (620x350, 58.91K)

Read Mit brennender Sorge, you liar.

Daily reminder that technological advances mask spiritual and cultural decay.

Reported for blasphemy.

Just reread the rules. I don't see that being strictly prohibited.

Actually it turns out galaxy rotation is currently hypothesized to be due to large scale quantum teleportation. Dark matter isn’t s term to describe a type of matter. It’s a placeholder phrase for “we don’t know”

?

Attached: sauces.jpg (1920x1080 359.45 KB, 2.56M)

we don't need to. one must only read our holy book to see that our beliefs are legitimate. what kind of fool would deny the existence of talking snakes, unicorns, wizards and women made from ribs?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

Tl;dr something we thought could only have been the case if our understanding of how the universe works was fundamentally in need of a rework? Turns out that’s the case after all

I was asking for sauce.

Upvoted!

Attached: 13eb20a1db0328365d15ef206c9ef8b326a060a90ea668ea959450bef989c9b8.jpg (353x334, 15.66K)

Oh lol. Here.
sci-news.com/physics/einsteins-principle-local-realism-big-bell-test-05998.html

Sauce for this my dude.

why? he merely agreed with the bible. the perfect word of god. are you mods saying you don't trust in the bible? repent for your foolishness and unban this fine christian gentleman at once!

he appears to be a fundamentalist who sees all parts of the bible as truths, unlike you heretics who distort the perfect word of god. I pray that you people will finally see the light and accept all parts of the bible, instead of cherry picking a few parts that you agree with, while discarding the rest. such a thing is only done by a follower of satan, not god.

Warned for being as sarcastic as a woman going through menopause.

are you denying the perfect word of god? the bible is very clear about the talking serpent being real. stop this satanism at once and repent for your disobedience to god

Reddit is down the hall and to the left

Attached: memes 67.gif (320x174, 1.88M)

following god's word is reddit tier behavior? clearly you have been led astray by satan. apologize to god for your heresy, or your eternal soul shall burn for ever in hell

Childlike.

Attached: memes 326.gif (480x270, 1.11M)

yes. I am trying to save you from eternal hellfire.

atheism is so stupid and easy to defend against. dawkins himself destroyed it. ask them what sort of proof they would deem as acceptable. your name written in the stars isn't enough cause it could easily be an alien. what is more likely (to the fedora). that you can communicate with God and Him to write a name in the sky, or that you know advanced aliens. Obviously aliens to the idiotfedora will be the most likely. Keep going, there will be literally no answer that can satisfy them. Not a million dollars in the bank, not an apparition, (can all be ayylmaos). They literally can never give one single answer that will ever satisfy them. in the end if they keep talking they have to admit they aren't asking for any proof at all because they can't come up with one single example of anything that fits their criteria. they have already decided that everything is an impossibility for them.

the proof of god is already proven by aquinas but for these ppl nothing is a proof for them they just say uhh that's refuted, they don't even have the mind to understand anything. they already proved despite any evidence provided they will not accept it, dogmatically. because in their mind anything, literally anything is more likely than God. even if they strongly felt like it was God doing all of this, they would conclude that it's more likely they took a drug and was hallucinating all of this and they forgot about it.

and anyways they have no kids, they are dying out.

however not all of the secular people these days are actually idiot fedoras. many people are a product of the current state sponsored secularism agnosticism and they are too afraid to go against the grain. the reality is this is human nature, this is how all these countries went protestant during the reformation or hornyboihenry's days. most people just follow. it's up to the woke (truly woke) people to make big changes and then people will follow. we're being attacked by all sides, making christianity look illogical (when it's the only logical way of thinking), stupid (literally created western/modern civilization), lame (literally the greatest art of all time was a byproduct of this) and so on.

so my idea of how to fight secularization and faggotry? we have to keep working hard to provide refutations for idiots arguments against christianity, by smart replying to comments, training people who want to get into online apologetics, creating good aesthetic resources on the faith etc. strongly create anti-propaganda, images and memes against the BS faggotry anti-christianism that is being spread around.

the second is what a lot of people don't like, yeah i really hate protestanism, but even within them not all of them are totally disgusting. we have to suppress the people who make us look really bad. we can't burn at the stake anymore, but we can actively do a lot to show these people are shunned and not taken seriously at all.

the next is i think a very important and overlooked area - it has to do with culture and arts. people are heavily influenced by this. we need to be creating great art which calls people to christianity, both explicit and implicit. in this day and age a lot can be done implicitly. music is an excellent way for an implicit way to inspire people (not shitty christian rock). we could do the same with fiction, short films (youtube is really untapped this way) and so on. we have a lot of work to do and a lot long way to go.

we have to work hard and influence the culture this way. yes the jews took over our industry and had it for a while, but the internet is a gift from God to us. we have to utilize it to the best and fight back. hopefully we can start some organized efforts soon.

Even winnie the pooh worse, he did more to ruin christianity than anyone. Hitler was an atheist, we have been through this before.

Attached: JK67iaA.jpg (746x789, 144.99K)

hmm I wonder….

roastie detected

Ew. Bad as Reddit.

Attached: disgusting.jpg (960x540, 40.57K)

*heretic
sorry typo

Sarcasm is not edifying. Yes we believe those things (except "unicorn" is a mistranslation of Auroch), but you're being a dick and repeatedly violating rule 2. If you hate us, why not go somewhere else?

citation needed
I will not rest until I've made you pseudo christians see the light. god demands it of me!

beta cucks

Attached: virgin preacher vs chad fundamentalist.png (2000x700, 1.15M)

Well I guess you;re illiterate because I just explained that we *do* believe those things.
I sure hope you don't talk to people this way in real life.

you bet I spread the word of god irl. Jesus himself instructed me to after all. I see you aren't one of those heretics then. good on you man! together we can spread the word of christ and someday hopefully take back the holy land, which rightfully belongs to the lord!

I was raised gadolig and believed it until I was 14. Then I read a logical fallacy by some Greek dude whose name began with E, I forgot what it was. It went something like this:
There is no way around it. If God is all-knowing, then he knows the Jews exist. If God is all-loving, then He doesn't want us to suffer at their hand. And if God is all-powerful, then He has the power to destroy them or He could have simply not created them in the first place. There is no way out of that, it's a logical fallacy.

Also, when Christians say, "we've strayed so far from God", how is He all-powerful then? If there is a such thing as distance from Him? What about the Holy Spirit that's supposed to be everywhere? It doesn't make sense, and your only argument is "we are mere mortals, how can we make sense of God?" ffs

...

Based post, Science(TM) is cancer

The word translated 'unicorn' in KJV is translated 'unicornis' in the Latin vulgate, and simply means 'a creature with a single horn.' In fact, it is still used today as the species name for one-horned rhinos. Prior to about the 19th century, this was the common meaning of the word 'unicorn' in English. The KJV was written in the 17th century.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, because the word only appears in Isaiah and Job, which were written in Hebrew. The word is 'רֶאֵם' pronounced 're'em.' The original meaning has been lost in time, but was translated into 'unicorn' in both the Greek Septuagint (which dates to the first millennium B.C.) and the Latin Vulgate, while Israeli Hebrew translates the animal as an oryx.

As for the original meaning, Johann Ulrich Duerst discovered it was based on an Akkadian word, 'rimu,' which refers to the aurochs.

So no, the word 'unicorn' in the Bible has absolutely zero to do with magical, one horned horses, something atheists would know if they bothered reading something more than 50 years old once in a while.

how does it feel to be this retarded? did you even graduate middle school?

Attached: kek232322.jpg (720x338, 77.1K)

Technological advancement is not inherently good. It seems that in many cases, an overly technologically dependent society becomes weak and degenerate. Western society has gotten much worse since 1969. Obviously the moon landing didn't cause that, rather the overall technological leap forward did.

did I argue for what is good or what is true? also stoning gay people to death isn't good lmao

The moon missions were real science. Science ^tm is Dawkins and Bill Nye.
And thanks for finally confirming that you're a sarcastic ass. Get b&, underage aniposter.
Pic related.

Attached: Gays.jpg (750x963, 588K)

the shock treatment would be preferable