Infected Euphoric atheists

[Freya]

It's entirely reasonable that atheists usually spend more time on Christians when they have to deal with them more often but it's something else entirely when these same idiots turn around and go into a frenzy defending goatfuckers who are ten times worse than the worst fundie you'd encounter in a civilized country.

show me some examples of them going into a frenzy defending goatfuckers.

 

[AnOminous]

show me some examples of them going into a frenzy defending goatfuckers.

Islamophobia - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

 

[Freya]

Islamophobia - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

the article is mostly referring to people who hate Muslims as people rather than criticizing Islam. it even goes on to explain the term is controversial among atheists and should not be confused with criticism of islam.

There is an article on anti-catholic sentiment too https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

Anti-Catholicism refers to staunch opposition to the Roman Catholic Church and to its members, usually grounded in conspiracy theory, nativism, and misrepresentation of Catholic theology (and, often, copious amounts of tangentially related wingnuttery).

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Dick Dawkins has a new book coming out.
View attachment 940228

Richard Dawkins on Twitter

“OUTGROWING GOD is full of interesting facts that will change the way you see the world. Available now for preorder.”

twitter.com

How is it possible for someone to write the exact same non-fiction book over and over as many times as this dude apparently has? Why was just updating new editions of "The God Delusion" not enough for him to do?

 

[AnOminous]

How is it possible for someone to write the exact same non-fiction book over and over as many times as this dude apparently has? Why was just updating new editions of "The God Delusion" not enough for him to do?

But this is for beginners, if you're so fucking dumb you didn't realize how much of a complete sped you'd have to be to believe in some bullshit god, like the moron you are. Read this new book, "a beginner's guide," you stupid god-believing idiot who believes in god, so you can learn how to be smart, or at least less of a dumb deist dummy.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I've never understood why so many atheist think the presence of a god is requisite of defining a religion. Many interpretations of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Shintoism have no gods, and many smaller religions also do not contain a god.

Hinduism and Shintoism do have gods, they're simply not dogmatic in the way that the Abrahamic religions are and they don't proselytize like Christianity and Islam do.

If the old pagan religions of Europe had survived into the modern day instead of being supplanted by Christianity, there's a good chance they would've ended up resembling modern-day Hinduism and Shintoism in a lot of ways.

Especially since Hinduism is rooted in the old Vedic traditions, which have a lot of cultural similarities with a lot of other Indo-European polytheistic views.

Otherwise, you're spot on. Atheists tend to have a massive hate-boner for Christianity since the movement largely started in countries that were traditionally Christian.

The "New Atheism" movement of the 1980's-2000's was largely a backlash against the Religious Right and this is where a lot of the guys like Dawkins and Hitchens came from. The SJW intersectionality movement was heavily rooted in the ideas of New Atheism before becoming more immersed in contrarian leftism.

The Atheism+ movement of the late 2000's and early 2010's was one of the earliest SJW groups out there, and IIRC, it was one of the largest and most visible in the pre-Occupy era. Prior to 2011-2012, the SJW ideology was mostly confined to college campuses, Tumblr, and the punk subculture. Atheism+ was the outlier and tried to hijack the New Atheists as a whole, leading to the "Fedoras vs. Dangerhairs" schism in modern atheist circles.

As much as I hate the fedora-clad euphoric atheists, I'd say they were the lesser of two evils and I'll respect them more if only for being more consistent in their criticisms of Islam. The only reason why SJW atheists are pro-Islam these days is because the Christian Right opposes Islam.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Hinduism and Shintoism do have gods, they're simply not dogmatic in the way that the Abrahamic religions are and they don't proselytize like Christianity and Islam do.

If the old pagan religions of Europe had survived into the modern day instead of being supplanted by Christianity, there's a good chance they would've ended up resembling modern-day Hinduism and Shintoism in a lot of ways.

Especially since Hinduism is rooted in the old Vedic traditions, which have a lot of cultural similarities with a lot of other Indo-European polytheistic views.

Otherwise, you're spot on. Atheists tend to have a massive hate-boner for Christianity since the movement largely started in countries that were traditionally Christian.

The "New Atheism" movement of the 1980's-2000's was largely a backlash against the Religious Right and this is where a lot of the guys like Dawkins and Hitchens came from. The SJW intersectionality movement was heavily rooted in the ideas of New Atheism before becoming more immersed in contrarian leftism.

The Atheism+ movement of the late 2000's and early 2010's was one of the earliest SJW groups out there, and IIRC, it was one of the largest and most visible in the pre-Occupy era. Prior to 2011-2012, the SJW ideology was mostly confined to college campuses, Tumblr, and the punk subculture. Atheism+ was the outlier and tried to hijack the New Atheists as a whole, leading to the "Fedoras vs. Dangerhairs" schism in modern atheist circles.

As much as I hate the fedora-clad euphoric atheists, I'd say they were the lesser of two evils and I'll respect them more if only for being more consistent in their criticisms of Islam. The only reason why SJW atheists are pro-Islam these days is because the Christian Right opposes Islam.

Certain interpretations of Hinduism, and Shintoism do not have gods. They see incorporeal spirits (or forces in the case of Hinduism) as existing, but do not designate them as divine. Basically, if one tells you to do something, it's not sinful to tell them to fuck off. The rest of what you said I agree with.

"Nir-īśvara-vāda" is often the term for view points on Hinduism which do not contain gods. Best I recall from studying Hinduism is that all "Orthodox" Hindus believe in the existence of gods, but "Heterodox" Hindus may, or may not believe in a god(s).

Shintoism is a bit more complex, since Shintoism does not really have uniform doctrines, and "Kami" may either be a god(s), or some abstract power. Pretty much all Shintos believe in spirits however. When I was studying world religions, it was often joked that Shintoism has between 0, and 8 million gods, or between 0, and infinite gods.

Though really, whether you consider a spirit a god, or not may be purely semantic. I would not consider a spirit a god because that would define by necessity philosophies like Confucianism as having deities.

 

[Freya]

In 2007, Christopher Hitchens wrote an article for Vanity Fair about how women aren't funny. It got a bit of backlash and he later made a video defending his position.

I cannot imagine how fast he would be cancelled if he were to write this in 2019. And he was considered a far leftist progressive back then.

 

[AnOminous]

In 2007, Christopher Hitchens wrote an article for Vanity Fair about how women aren't funny. It got a bit of backlash and he later made a video defending his position.

I cannot imagine how fast he would be cancelled if he were to write this in 2019. And he was considered a far leftist progressive back then.

He was a self-described neocon like many ex-Trotskyites.

 

[BOONES]

Did someone say god? Well sir I believe that your magical sky wizard doesnt exist *smug grin as neck fat jiggles* how could one fit 2 of every animal on such a small boat? *tips fedora at a perfect 45 degree angle*

 

[OneEyedCool]

What's funny is that while mocking the "weak-minded sheep" who believe in religion, they're flocking together in exactly the same way.

The Madalyn Murray O'Hair quotes comes up "Hearding atheists is like hearding cats".

A blond, attractive, self-described "soccer mom," Johnson may be a more accessible representative of atheist thought than O'Hair, but she knows she faces an uphill battle in trying to expand American Atheists' membership beyond its current total of 1,900.

"All the free-thought organizations are small," she says. "It doesn't matter how you run your group. Because the atheist, in general, is not a joiner. Most atheists are still in the closet. They're very independent people. They're not like church people. They don't like to follow. That's good, and it's also bad. It's good for the atheist in general to be that independent, but for the organization, it's like herding cats."

Beyond Belief

Being an outspoken atheist in America has never been a walk in the park, but these are particularly trying days for nonbelievers.At last month's inauguration of George W. Bush, the Reverend Franklin Graham dedicated the ceremony to Jesus Christ, and proclaimed Him to be "our savior," a...

www.phoenixnewtimes.com

 

[A Welsh Cake]

God bless this thread.

 

[An Account]

I randomly got this Youtube channel recommended to me the other day, something about narcissists and their tactics against people. His creepy, eyeless baby avatar was immediately off-putting, as was his accent (fucking anglos). But, the thing that interested me were the titles of his other videos.

Here he says that you should not respect religious beliefs at all, for all the same reasons you've heard from the other euphorics.

And in this video he actually addresses Secular Humanism at around 9 minutes in.

 

[A Welsh Cake]

I randomly got this Youtube channel recommended to me the other day, something about narcissists and their tactics against people. His creepy, eyeless baby avatar was immediately off-putting, as was his accent (fucking anglos). But, the thing that interested me were the titles of his other videos.

Here he says that you should not respect religious beliefs at all, for all the same reasons you've heard from the other euphorics.

And in this video he actually addresses Secular Humanism at around 9 minutes in.

Yeah I had that happen to me, I thought the Narco video would be an interesting watch but he does have a rather personal bone to pick with Religion. Understandably because his Narco mother essentially tainted it for him however I doubt anyone would say he's unbiased in this case.

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

I found this bit of fedora spergery in a reddit thread. The way the author keeps using the word we makes them sound like an alien and/or autistic.

r/AmItheAsshole - Comment by u/TechniChara on ”AITA for converting to Judaism?”

40 votes and 40 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

AITA for converting to Judaism? : AmItheAsshole

archived 16 Oct 2019 03:37:39 UTC

archive.fo

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I remember looking at this book in a bookstore (yeah that was last decade) -- I think it was "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Anyway the author looked forward to a future where humans are replaced with atheist robots who explore the universe.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

I remember looking at this book in a bookstore (yeah that was last decade) -- I think it was "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Anyway the author looked forward to a future where humans are replaced with atheist robots who explore the universe.

Jesus, there's an idea that reads like the most nuclear of Slate hot takes. "Skynet is sending all remaining humans to death camps. Here's why that's a good thing."

 

[Positron]

I remember looking at this book in a bookstore (yeah that was last decade) -- I think it was "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Anyway the author looked forward to a future where humans are replaced with atheist robots who explore the universe.

This is a book written by experimental physicist Victor Stenger. I haven't read this exact book but Stenger is an insightful, original writer, not a fedora like Dawkins, and he stays within science and does not venture into areas where Science has no say, such as culture and morality.

Edit: I read a summary of this book and it seems Stenger did overstep into morality and metaphysics. Oh well.

Some of Stenger argument are silly too:

• If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
• No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
• Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.

You can contest both premises; the second is especially problematic.

Welp, what more can I say? Scientists, please stay in your lane. If you want to write about philosophy or theology, at least team up with someone in the know!

 

[AnOminous]

Some of Stenger argument are silly too:

• If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
• No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
• Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.

You can contest both premises; the second is especially problematic.

Every argument for or against the existence of God that purports to be logical is an obfuscation of begging the question. The "good" ones like St. Anselm's ontological argument just bury the assumed premise under a bunch of malarkey. This one is bad because both premises are openly silly.

The only real definition of what a "God" would be is a cause that itself has no cause, i.e. a noncontingent first cause.

This author appears to assume as the necessary characteristics of a "God" that it have the same characteristics assumed by the specific religions he doesn't like.

 

[RedneckQuadFeed]

So Michael Pualkovich and SkepticNikki had their Twitter acounts terminated about two months ago. But they both came back with a vengeance.

Just for an extra laugh, Nikki's page description this time around is a bit exceptional.