Debunking Athesim

I'm gonna oversimplify this a bit, but should help as a rough guide to theism. It's basically the chain of deductions and thoughts that over time turned me from agnostic to theist. Simply put:
-If you are real (Descartes, cogito ergo sum), there's no way to prove the outside world isn't just a construct of your imagination. It's a dead end.
-If the outside world is real (Humes, empiric philosophy), there's no way to prove that you're not just a deterministic piece of flesh going about your life in a deterministic manner. Yet, you do experience yourself, since you're self-aware, but that does not necessarily imply free will and independent existence of the self.
Basically everyone believes they are real and the outside world is real (failing to believe in any of them will mess with you mind quite badly and make you miserable). Believing in both requires an unavoidable leap of faith, that pretty much anyone does and takes for granted. No one in their right mind will deny the reality of the world or that they're individuals with free will, which means they're something more than just matter, that they have something akin to a soul. It's also pretty hard to be deterministic and give a proper answer to why are we self-aware without acknowledging the existence of free will. Some atheist try to negate conscience and free will (Daniel Dennett wrote a book on this called something like "Consciousness Explained Away"), yet none of them live by that belief. To actually live by that means you loose your sense of agency and, trust me on this one, that's no fun. Sane people do believe on both their existence and the existence of the outside world, since they take the previously mentioned leap of faith. Just exposing this can be enough to turn many non-staunch atheist (I'm an atheist cause all my friends are) to an agnostic.
So, that's the first step, realizing there's something more to the world than just the purely physical, that both matter and minds are real, are different things and yet are able to coexist. What comes after that? An order, a purpose. If the universe is ordered, has a logos to it, it has a purpose. This purpose is God (or more accurately, points to God). There's plenty of empirical evidence of the orderliness of the the universe; just look around. The simple physic principle of entropy pretty much implies the universe should not exist, and that life itself is an absurd. Yet, the universe is there and life carries on, all of it interacting all the time in a perfectly ordered manner. The simple presence of order implies a purpose, and there clearly is order cause otherwise, there'd be nothing at all.
But wait, there's more. Purpose can be deduced from order, but it can be perceived directly too. Humans are in a constant search for purpose in their lives. We long for it, we need it. It's not happiness, it's not power or love we crave, it's purpose, and all the previous things are just ways to try find it. The search of purpose is paramount to the human existence, and negating the former is negating the later. We all do empirically experience this. And if you search for something that gives you a reason to exist, that places as a part of something greater, a principle that gives sense to the universe… well, you're searching for God. He is something you experience, something you need to make sense of your existence.

Attached: nihilism.jpg (936x929, 84.05K)

(cont.)
The problem with this line of though? It's strictly empirical. You believe in your existence cause you experience it, and you believe in the real world for the same reason. I started by doubting everything and adopting a Hume-style empirical method, but I could not negate that I was experiencing my own existence, that I as a subject was as real as the objects I were experiencing. And, if I was to be honest with myself, I had to admit the reality of other non-physical experiences, like love, or music or art. Sure, a part of those experiences can be explained as physical, but that does not wholly explain them. Not acknowledging there's more to them is dishonest.
But dishonesty is the name of the game for some people. Ask them, for example, if they feel moved when listening to Handel's Messiah, and they'll say "No, I didn't feel anything that isn't strictly derivative of chemical impulses". Go down that path and they'll come to stupidly deterministic arguments like "I took that decision probably cause something in my subconscious made me think of that and because I had this mood as a consequence of the composition of my last meal which could be lacking in certain nutrients and I chose that meal cause…". Atheist basically refuse to believe in God but will quite happily believe in destiny.
It's easy to negate God if you negate parts of reality. To really be empirical requires utmost humility, requires recognizing that you know nothing, can't really ever know anything for sure, and that you'll have to live with what you perceive. Most atheist want to believe they hold certain Truths that are immutable, that they're able to obtain pure untainted knowledge that does not need to, nor cannot, be corrected. This is arrogance (in my opinion, the greatest sin, since it blinds you to your failings and makes you stray away from God). If you're aware that you know nothing, that all truths you hold are fallible and mutable, you'll come to realize the only true Truth is that which can give sense to the rest of existence, and that's a Truth you can't ever truly know, only intuit it; knowing it to some degree would require revelation.

Attached: sky jesus.jpg (601x310, 34.45K)

Just as a side note what is that wired gray symbol behind the weed leaf?

send them to watch some E.Michael Jones on the question.

There was always "something" i.e. matter.

Saying that the universe is "ordered" because God ordered it, is circular logic.

Don't listen to atheist minds. That is the ultimate debate

If God no exist, why good happen??

Look out of the window?

Mmmh, how can we into apologetics?

I assume is the smoke from smoking the weed.

No. You can observe the universe is ordered. Something with order has to have a purpose, has to be ordered towards something. Ordered pixels in your screen are ordered to form an image. Atoms are ordered to form molecules, molecules ordered to form cells, cells are ordered to form you. The universe is ordered cause it exists. The image would not exist if the pixels weren't ordered, and you wouldn't exist if your cells weren't ordered. From order comes existence.
When all creation is ordered, it's ordered towards the highest possible goal; it has to be, for lesser objects have to be ordered towards greater ones. God is what the universe is ordered to. That's why God is logos.

Some of us (maybe even most of us) were atheist or agnostics before we were able to change our views. Talking about this issues helps change atheist minds or, at least, slowly erode their fanaticism.

Attached: logos em jones.jpg (480x360, 9.97K)

But where did that something come from? And what external forces manipulated it to become what it is now?

so matter is eternal?

Hello, Teilhard!

Show them the site of Sodom and Gomorrah

Attached: sodom_and_gomorrah.jpg (380x312, 52.8K)

John Duns published the best argument for God in his Ordinatio.

Natural law as presented in the Bible correlates perfectly with science i.e. women who commit adultery have less stable marriages.
That and I haven't seen an atheist find a single error in the Bible, if this book wasn't inspired by God then why is it perfect despite being written over several thousand years by several different authors?

Look at any building, and you know that it has a builder. You can't see him, hear him, touch him, smell him, or taste him but you know that he exists. Look at a painting, and you know it has a painter. Therefore, creation must have a creator, it's just far too ordered to be an accident. Just as a book doesn't write itself with coherent sentences falling into place with proper syntax and grammar and punctuation, page numbers, pictures, a table of contents, etc. Your genetic code, your DNA, is coded information that tells your body how tall to be, what color your eyes and hair will be, the lengths of your limbs, everything that makes you unique. There is no way that atheism can be correct.

staugustine.net/our-books/books/the-last-superstition/

Check this out, it doubles as a basic introduction to philosophy because literally knowing any philosophy totally refutes athiesm. They are just incoherent hecklers who hate their dads.

He also has some great blogposts on the subject
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/can-we-make-sense-of-world.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html

Great post until you tried to slip free will in there. I don't understand how it follows that free will must exist simply because you can observe yourself.

Another non-sequitur. Even if free will does exist why do you need a soul in order for it to be so? I understand that Christianity hinges on freely choosing to follow Christ, and you seem to be doing bad philosophy by chaining assumptions together without proving them in order to satisfy the requirements of Christianity being true.

No it doesn't: knowing the neurological basis for hunger doesn't mean I lose my sense of hunger; knowing how an optical illusion works doesn't stop my brain from misinterpreting visual information wrongly.

Reality does not hinge on what you personally find fun. This is just shit philosophy. I notice a lot of theists (someone mentioned CS Lewis, who does this often) continually try to appear to make logical arguments while sprinkling in appeals to emotion as filler, hoping no one will notice the inconsistencies if you claim the reader is not "sane" or "in their right mind" for not accepting your arguments. If you can prove God exists in a philosophically consistent manner then you shouldn't need to do this. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post(s) because it's just more of the same. You're not actually trying to prove anything, but simply implying all other arguments but yours are wrong because they're "stupid", not because you've proven them to be wrong.

Are you sure the universe is actually ordered or do we simply perceive it to be so? Are you sure your not experiencing an advanced form of pareidolia?

Attached: buster book.jpg (230x174, 9.08K)

You experience free will so it exists. Claiming it doesn't is just as asinine as claiming your consciousness doesn't exist. You can't claim that the thing which is experiencing is being tricked by an illusion, consciousness must exist in the first place if it is to be "tricked".

In Christian theology the soul is synonymous with the consciousness of the individual. You know that you're a sapient being thus you have a soul, the soul is the thing that allows you to experience phenomenal consciousness and not simply be a meat puppet guided by pure neuronal logic gates.

Acting on hunger is the exact opposite of agency. That's devolving down to a more animalistic state and acting based on biological impulses. Acting according to the will is what gives you agency, the ability to deny bodily urges and act according to the rational mind.

The argument from reason isn't an appeal to emotion. It's a simple fact that if you believe you are the result of nothing more than biological impulses that you have no reason to believe anything is truth at all. Under a naturalistic view of the world it's just as likely you evolved in a way that precludes you from ever finding the true nature of reality through sensory information because you interpret the world in a fundamentally incorrect way. Theism is the only philosophy that allows for the possibility of objective knowledge.

This loops back around to Descartes and cogito ergo sum. Theists have every reason to believe we interpret the world accurately. If you're a naturalist then you're right, you have no reason to believe your perception of reality is accurate, but then if you don't think you can ever know truth beyond the fact you exist (and if you think free will is an "illusion" not even that) why even bother posting here to argue? Your epistemology and worldview is one that can never know anything.

No, atheists can't believe that a virtual authority will keep them accountable.
You are on to something here. As a nontheist myself, I would conform to the will of a social group, if and only if, they were possible to reason with. I would not subjecting myself to austerity and guilt without an adequate explanation.
This is a concept from egypt, where sins would be tallied up when people died, and good people would be buried where they grew food.

This is a blatant falsehood. I have no issue with philosophy, and it taught me how to discern different kinds of logic from one another.
You seem to think atheists are incapable of marvelling at the mathematical wonders of nature.

Failing to believe in the same way as a group does, will alienate an individual. People have a need to belong.
Yes indeed, and humans are capable of explaining parts of it with astonishing precision, through mathematics.

I suppose Einstein was stupid for maintaing that "God does not play dice", which arguably is a deterministic view.
It is not a matter of refusing. The issue is far mor subtle than that. Your insistence that empiricism requires humility is a indeed a valuable position to hold, but atheism and antitheism are different.

Have fun in your echo chamber.

Your argument is about as sophisticated as stating "bird is the word".
From the greek school of communication, Ethos is an ethical appeal, Logos is a logical appeal, and Pathos is an appeal to emotions.

Oh dear, I'm afraid this goes both ways.

If Jesus was the son of God, then his father must have been a God as well. It stands to reason that if Jesus had a Son, then he would have been God as well. Hence all humans have the property of God.

Debunking antitheism and theism can be done the same way, because both involve a claim on the truth value of the existence of God. Atheism is a bit harder to deal with. Take the word apolitical as an example: How could you debunk the position that someone does not participate in politics?

The other problem with this line of thought is that it rationally validates the necessity of a creator, but NOT God as described by Christianity. This same logic, absent other concerns, validates deism, buddhism, and most other pagan religions and heresies.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post. This user did a great job at addressing your objections, but I'd like to add some stuff too.

In empiric thinking, you do not arrive to the same big Truths with capital T that you get with deductive logical thinking. You can observe free will, experience it and feel it. It's part of your reality, same as a rock. You accept a rock is real on the same principles. They're both, the rock and your free will, lower case truths based only on your subjective understanding (which is the only understanding you can have).

The non-physical part of a human being is called a soul. It's only terminology. If you don't like the term cause it sounds too religious, use another one, like "the Being" or simply say "that part of man which is not merely physical".

great line right there

Thanks for posting. I'll answer to the comments directed at my previous posts, to help clarify some stuff.

Brilliant! taking these.

it can be helpful I find to spell things out a bit. When I say "non-physical" or "natural", I like to say "not a part of physics", to really hit home what exactly it means to be non-physical. It's very evident that love and qualia in it of itself is not a part of the studies of physics. Even if physical events do go off when certain qualia are experienced, that change the fact that the qualia itself clearly isn't physical.

Experience therefor transcends physics. It changes with physics, and yet isn't actually describable by physics. This alone proves that there exists things outside of physics, and once you accept that, you're in dangerous territory.

But you've helped me realize something. empirical means solid, faith means pie in the sky nonsense. So knowing that this is what these words really mean you could attack the heart of the issue with satisfying clarity.

ima spam some of my arguments I have saved.

[Chance does not drive evolution]

DNA is identical to computer machine code, they have variables, functions and everything. Wouldn't adding random letters to genes turn the DNA language into something random? Random gibberish isn't functional however, only proper words can do anything and this is definitely true of DNA as well.

If you had regular computer machine code and started adding mutations to it (typing random letters, taking letters out), wouldn't that just give you an error? Wouldn't your code become just a bunch of useless gibberish the more random you made it? So how then can adding random mutations produce new code in DNA when what should really be happening is it LOSING functional code? It is worth noting that degradation is observed and absolutely does happen.

Well I know how, if the mutation is beneficial for the organism's survival, it will survive and pass down. This is the law of natural selection - so it is not done by chance alone but done with chance and law; however there is a problem.

Machines:
Machines have a unique quality about them; they are only functional once all the necessary parts for their function are completed. What that means is that machines fundamentally provide no benefit to their survival until they are finished, meaning they cannot be selected for by natural selection until they are already done. This would mean that the entire machine would have to come about by pure chance without any help from natural selection. All of life is made of little complex machines that would have to come about by pure chance.

Now the odds of any machine coming about by chance are about the same odds that random letters will just so happen to form functional sentences together, and as you can tell by the ID on 4chan, it's rare to get a 4 letter word. There are simply far more gibberish arrangements of letters [forms] than there are real words and so mathematically it ends up being unlikely.

In other words it doesn't add up, it's too improbable for chance to drive evolution

Now here's a question, what is the difference between humans and animals?

Well here's a difference, Humans can speak and animals cannot. In fact speach, language, and words of any kind are unique in that they are only known to come from people. If there were no humans (or extra terestrial persons for that matter), we would expect to see no words in physics anywhere, because the only thing that is known to produce words does not exist. Here's another example, if one of our NASA observatories looking for radio signals found a signal that, instead of looking like random noise or regular patterns, had the appearance of a kind of speach or code, this would of course be evidence that there are extra-terrestial persons. Again this is because the natural world tends to produce random noise and does not produce speach, whereas persons are known to produce speach, and so clearly some xenos out there that wrote the message.

Now you might of noticed that I said that Dna is a code; that means Dna is logos, it is quite litterally words, a type of speach, and again speach doesn't come from physics. Wouldn't that technically imply that our DNA, our living code is writing, and therefor implies there was a litteral author of life who wrote our DNA? In fact it is not a technicallity - this is essentially the argument that philosophers have used for centuries to argue that there is a God. It's why prior to darwin any deist had to admit there must have been a God, and it's what thinkers in all fields and sciences are rediscovering as they learn more about information in this information era. There is logos [reasonable, language like order] to the world, which implies somebody wrote it; but if somebody wrote the universe, or was the author of life, then of course that someone is God. What's funny is this idea of "writing the world into being" takes on a whole new level of sense when you consider that today, in the information era, our human programmers already write worlds into being when they write machine code for their games and simulations. Our universe is actually kind of like a video game, in fact quantum physics seems to directly reinforce that view seeing as all matter and energy is fundamentally made of information, and what is code really if not for information? But videogames have authors, they don't come about by chance due to how much writing is involved - it'd be too improbable. Wouldn't the same true of this vastly more complicated world?

With my prior argument, which is that neo-Darwinism cannot explain the origin of new code, which is essentially reittating that logos cannot come about by chance, I can then establish that Logos is already well known to only come from persons, and so evolution - changes in biological form - is driven by God, not chance. In what way exactly God drives these changes, no one is sure, but we can know when God input these changes by looking at when they happened [ex. during the cambrian explosion], and that God in fact somehow must have wrote this, as such things do not come about by chance - or rather they could only come about this way by ways of a miracle, as it is simply too unlikely.

Atheists are therefor eternally btfo'ed and will never ever recover.

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” –Astronomer Allan Sandage

“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” —Werner von Braun

im actually not that happy with these, but they're something.

this one should be better:

If there is something, then we know there was never nothing. This is because it is impossible to go from nothing to something.
It's impossible because in order to go from nothing to something, you would need to exist before you existed to cause yourself to come into being. That is of course impossible, so from this we establish that because there is something, there has in the past NEVER been nothing.

Now if there has never been nothing, then it logically follows that there must have always been something. This "eternal something" nessisarily also must be uncreated. This is because if the eternal something was created and had an origin, then that means that before that origin there wasn't always something, which is to say, there wasn't anything - and remember, there can never in the past have been nothing, and so for the eternal something it nessisarily must have never been created.

God is this uncreated eternal something, also known as a nessisary being. Atheists used to think the nessisary being was the universe itself, until they Got BTFO finding out that the universe had a beginning and therefor wasn't the nessisary being.

I’m assuming you mean the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang, which if you do mean, is it not possible there could be something before the Big Bang?

Could you speak on what was the break for you? What was the event or thought or whatever that led you here?

Attached: 02cda460266bb8a3c47fdca63c41ceaeccb0d2993b1b19359eb519018ef0951a.png (1288x800, 662.93K)

This image is excellent for the "muh reason, muh logic, muh proofs" crowd because it uses their own language and leaves them little choice to counter besides emotional outbursts like "well I DON'T BELIEVE THAT".

Attached: fe56e1b20c2283993a370f9e698c85d8b6edf1c1bb999766845800020834a4c0.jpeg (700x6826, 640.34K)

No. No it doesn't.

The Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic proofs of God, as presented among others in Edward Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God

Attached: 1546580414845.jpg (703x2743 1.21 MB, 1.38M)

The biggest argument against atheism is atheists themselves. Within an atheistic framework, neither people nor really anything has any implicit value. Yet most atheists, especially those with whom you're likely to have conversations with, are very big moralizers. Their actions contradict their words, because something very deep inside them tells them to value justice, as if we were more than just mere machines. The biggest problem with reaching atheists though is that they have a muddled mind, and cannot, usually, be introspective enough to see this. It's like trying to speak to someone who speaks a different language: while you both share language as a concept, your words are not the same. It's only when you have a mutual framework that you can reach them and speak coherently.

the thread is called 'debunking atheism' not 'proving that my specific god that hates foreskins exists'

My family was going through a lot and my home got a bit unstructured, to put it mildly. I had always relied heavily on my family, and when that crumbled I fell into depression (which I hided, in part cause I didn't want to add more crap to the pot, in part cause knifes were flying and I didn't want to give an opening and get stabbed). After two years I really wanted to get myself together. What I think helped me a lot was my absolute refusal to accept any major cause for my depression that wasn't my own responsibility. I knew people had it worse than me and managed to keep on living, and I knew the moment I placed the source of my troubles on somewhere else (or I started blaming society) I would give away the possibility of solving them. As long as the problem was myself, the solution laid within myself. Jordan B. Peterson's lectures were a big help in that regard. I find his political stuff interesting, though a bit repetitive, but I'd say his lectures are quite good.
Once I managed to get a foot out of my depression, I realized that I was essentially facing the Chaos of the world with my own order, and that sooner or later I would fall back down if I didn't manage to find a source of Order that was not myself. Or to put it in some other way, I'm insignificant, and trying to find meaning within myself would lead me back into nihilism and suffering. I needed some source of meaning that was greater than the Void which had caused me suffering.
Around the beginning of this year, I came to this board, looking mainly for metaphysical discussion (which I've always enjoyed), and then I started to remember all that I had been taught about Christianity as a kid. It all started to make sense in a much deeper way, in ways my child self would have never been able to understand. I starting trying to live out my beliefs and well, here I am.
I still have a long way forward, but the last few months have been an absolute joy. I know I'll fall, and have periods of doubt and weakness but, honestly, I don't care much. I've gotten a bit closer to God and I cherish that greatly. Will I ever get to Heaven? No, Heaven would be lesser if people like me could enter, but in a way, I've already been at the gates of Hell, so a minuscule glance at God's perfection is, for me, enough to make mi existence worthwhile.

So, I'm sorry if you expected some well thought out argument for why my God is the Christian one and not some other God. I deeply believe that God cannot be reached through reasoning alone. Before I fully fell into depression I was into hermetic thinking (alchemy/gnosticism; some books are worth reading, they'll make you think about God's nature) in a desperate search for meaning, while I felt myself slowly drifting away. Intellectually believing in God and living your life in a mundane way does nothing; if God exists, you must life as if God exists. There has to come a point when you say "OK, so intellectually this makes sense, now it's time to act it out". Belief and action should go hand in hand.
Incidentally, that also relates to what I don't consider logical proofs of God's existence to be of much use. I think is better to analyze, deeply, how we act and interpret the world, and come to understand how that way way of acting and knowing can only make sense if there's a higher being. Then act in accordance to the existence of that higher being and see how the pieces fall in their place.

This is honestly the main point. The radical epistemology of Athiesm should lead (and often does I imagine) to solipsism.

The argument against atheism is that it doesn't inherently exist, every sentient being either consciously blocks out awareness of God or it doesn’t. Saint Paul argues this and so do modern rabbis. Modern Christians have forgot.

This board is heavily censored by Catholic mods, check:

>>>/christianity/

>>>/orthodox/

>>>/baptist/

I definitely need to explore the Baptist faith better… it’s so mysterious to me. Basically, they are bizarro-Protestants with a penchant for performing baptisms?

Much of what we know about the universe indicates that the universe isn't cyclical. Left alone, the universe will enter heat death because entropy. The Big Crunch isn't an accepted theory.

That said, there's much that we don't know about the universe, considering that scientists are chasing dark matter and dark energy that only exist according to theory and may simply not exist in the first place. Though if an atheist falls into that argument, you could laugh at him for relying on a "Scientific Theory of the Gaps".

one good argument ive heard is that if youre an atheist you likely believe in natural selection, right? well if thats true why is that all societies throughout history have had some sort of religious belief in higher beings? truly if atheism was so enlightened, there would be some tribes in polynesia that are atheist or something right? but no, literally every single human race on earth has some sort of religious conviction, no matter how primitive or advanced, and all these beliefs often have some common themes tying them together. according to the theories of evolution and natural selection, atheism is unfit for this world and religious beliefs are clearly superior from a naturalistic standpoint. whether or not religious beliefs are true is irrelevant; all societies believe in them because religious beliefs have inherently positive values to any society, whereas atheism only provides depression, nihilism and lack of purpose.

Attached: Contraste.jpg (284x400, 28.88K)

Something cannot come from nothing.
The universe did not come about ex nihilo.
Let's see atheists worm their way out of this one…

1.No God => no way to measure good or bad => moral relativism=> the nazis and the communists are ok because that was what they chose as their moral values.

2. Countless historical documents that prove Jesus was real. But what about Jesus being God or making miracles? His followers were killed because of their faith => they saw something they could not give up.

3. Exorcism is real. Look it up. Supernatural reapm exists and only Jesus is the way.

realm*

I just learned that everything I like is evil/satanic, and everything that I dont like is Good, easy peasy.

the nazis were ok nitwit

Just ask the atheist "if there is no god then why did Jesus have to die for your sins so his blood could get you into heaven?"

case closed!

maybe not the best example tbh

Attached: 1e53f320a0c792321b9c9a7c3d648665ed8633ff.jpeg (1310x848 7.89 KB, 824.88K)

The Church rejected both Nazis and Commies

Except no

Attached: 1e53f320a0c792321b9c9a7c3d648665ed8633ff.jpeg (700x477 63.03 KB, 51.63K)

NON ABBIAMO BISOGNO
An Encyclical from Pope Pius XI condeming Italian Fascism and the worship of the State (Statolraty)
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061931_non-abbiamo-bisogno.html

MIT BRENNENDER SORGE
An Encyclical from Pope Pius XI condeming German Neo-paganism (aka raceolatry) and the Nazis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

DIVINI REDEMPTORIS
An Encyclical from Pope Pius XI condeming Communism.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html
Additional encyclicals:
Nostis et nobiscum (1849), Quanta cura (1864), and Rerum novarum (1891)

Attached: Supa_hot_fire_ohhhhhhh!!!!_3-58_screenshot.jpg (640x360, 34.55K)

by saluting them and meeting with hitler and joining their party right?

See