Infected Euphoric atheists

[ChuckSlaughter]

To be enlightened by your own intelligence is like reaching orgasm with your own hand.

As a compulsive masturbator I'm tired of you shitlording all over my way of life and slutshaming my palms!

To the person rating us "off topic."
We're just giving examples of Militiant Athiests who DID kill people.
they could be historical lolcows.

What you believe in has nothing to do with how intelligent you are.

One of my professors was telling me about a teacher he studied under himself back in Lebanon. The guy had a Ph.D in electrical engineering from MIT (which they presumably don't just hand out) but he was also part of a sect of Islam that believed quite literally that the world was flat.

People are weird like that.

I'd love to be able to ask that guy questions. God that has to be interesting. I'm fascinated by people who are presumably smarter than me who hold beliefs that defy casual observation of the world around them... If he was from lebanon and went to MIT he could simply look out the window while flying over the ocean and observe the curvature of the earth, same if he'd ever been on a ship. I also wonder if he had any classes on RF, I'd assume so at some point. How'd he reconcile what he learned about radio and the earth's curvature?

It's also sad that Atheism = trying to be edgy

I hate this... of course the only times I've encountered it was when I was foolish enough to engage people on the topic. I know it's a real sentiment among Christians though and I have to wonder how they maintain the attitude with the slowly growing number of nonreligious people and the existence of old atheists. Then again these are the same people who gleefully declare everyone becomes a christian on their deathbed or in foxholes. Another thing I never understood, it seems like a slap in god's face to find jesus on your deathbed. Maybe even cowardly, certainly selfish.

I tried to be christian to fit in as a kid, and when I was military because I saw how much comfort it gave people through rough times. I was prepared to swallow a lie if there was some way to believe it... I saw other people do it I was sure I could.

No it was boring and stupid to me, lol but according to random early 20 somethings on the internet I'm just rebelling against my parents. Anyhow after talking about this like twice ever on the internet it became clear it is completely pointless. If someone christian asks me my religion I usually just tell them 'I dunno I was raised protestant or something' and it seems to satisfy those who would flip out if I was atheist and still give me wiggle room to admit not being religious if somehow it comes up later like we're cool but they want me to go to bible study.

Course it's not as big of deal on the west coast but some places people will act like you've slapped them in the face and you're offended by christmas.

 

[Marvin]

The term "agnostic" in it's usage today goes back to Thomas Huxley who stated

But all words have an original usage. That doesn't have anything to do with the current usage. When it comes to language, the current usage is the correct one.

Of course, there are other, valid usages of agnostic. The one you're talking about is correct too. Really, I should've said it was "a correct usage" instead of "the correct usage". My point is more that more casual usage is accepted broadly enough that it's wrong to call it incorrect.

 

[Daario Naharis]

But why do you have to respect religious beliefs if you aren't religious? Sorry if I sound like a douche but I don't care about religious feelings at all since there is no proof that their various deities exist. Of course if I visit a religious country I will not tell the people there how I really feel because I'm a just tourist.

You dot have to RESPECT them, but it's atill advisable to avoid being a twat. "Invited to dinner at religious friends house? Snort while they are saying graces" shit like that is where I take issue.

If I can find the video, I'll post it tonight, but I recall one guy who had this video and his argument was basically "the universe is really big and I think the bible is stupid so religion is a lie." It's like they listen to Christopher Hitchens, but they lack his intellect, so they just parrot him as best they can.

 

[AnOminous]

But all words have an original usage. That doesn't have anything to do with the current usage. When it comes to language, the current usage is the correct one.

Of course, there are other, valid usages of agnostic. The one you're talking about is correct too. Really, I should've said it was "a correct usage" instead of "the correct usage". My point is more that more casual usage is accepted broadly enough that it's wrong to call it incorrect.

Casual usage is going to be recognized as casual usage when using terms of art incorrectly.

Also, agnostic is a term from philosophy. There's really no point whatsoever in using a word like that incorrectly, casually or otherwise.

 

[MiloWuCollusion]

Philosophy is not inmmune at using terms incorrectly. Specially when some of the terms come from thousands of years ago.

 

[Linako 2.0]

If I can find the video, I'll post it tonight, but I recall one guy who had this video and his argument was basically "the universe is really big and I think the bible is stupid so religion is a lie." It's like they listen to Christopher Hitchens, but they lack his intellect, so they just parrot him as best they can.

Onision?

 

[AnOminous]

Philosophy is not inmmune at using terms incorrectly. Specially when some of the terms come from thousands of years ago.

And it's no big deal, really. I have a minor sore point on agnostic, though, because atheists of a certain stripe seem to want to appropriate and redefine it. I also prefer the original Huxley definition.

I'm aware that it's a losing battle, sort of like the long-lost battle over the word "hacker," but there is at least a certain point in occasionally reinforcing proper usage.

I'll shut up now.

 

[Sanae Kochiya]

How can you make fun of people believing on fate alone when there isn't yet a proven theory of how the universe came to be? There isn't even a proof that there are no alien beings in the world who are so advanced they are, for practical purposes, gods.

Because when people try to sell me that the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago by God, they tend to go into wackjob conspiracy spiels about how all of paleontology, geology, etc. that outlines how utterly wrong that is is simply reinforcing the "conspiracy" and "religion" that is Science.

One of the main points of Science is "We don't know, therefore we will continue to hypothesize and experiment until we have an idea of what is true." Not "We read it in a book therefore it's the ultimate truth." I have nothing against religion, but the people who follow the Bible or other religious texts like it's the only truth and spout it off in defiance of everything we've learned in the past few years are, well... hilarious. They're like the people who vehemently deny the Earth is round.

basically all atheists are lolcows.

brb making a lolcow thread on myself.

 

[CatParty]

brb making a lolcow thread on myself.

we already have this one

 

[Watcher]

The Armoured Skeptic, which some people actually already mentioned, actually has a video outlining his life story and how he became disillusioned with both religion and "euphoric atheism." It's rather insightful and helps you understand where he comes from as a "skeptic."

Armoured Skeptic's background was with Atheism+ which were social justice warriors. There are MRA militant atheists.

There are a lot of SJW atheists who are big names in the community. It got to the point where the entire thing fractured into smaller sub communities where only specific members socialized with each other.

Thunderf00t is a good example of a user who got "excommunicated" more or less from Atheism+ because his views were controversial.

 

[I AM STRAIGHT!!!!]

It's popular among militant atheists/antitheists to say that not believing in God is more logically valid than believing, since it involves no unproven beliefs, and therefore should be legally more valid. This would be the basis for banning religious practices and symbols from public spaces.

So my approach to trolling super-atheists on twitter involved claiming that I am a gnostic, in the sense that an agnostic does not claim understanding of God, irrespective of their belief on his existence; I am the opposite: I claim knowledge irrespective of belief. (i.e. I like to claim that Genesis describes natural selection for example, without claiming that it is a divine writing. Atheists tend to be "wrong" on many things, like Cain's wife, as Christians tend to be "wrong" on things like how many Christs there were; there is always something).

If you can get someone to see that you have more knowledge than them, they can still defend their position on the basis that they are entitled to their belief. Belief that there is no evidence for God's existence is a modest belief, but it is still a belief and calling skeptical-rationalist types out on this while claiming superior knowledge drives them nuts. For example if an atheist stands on their belief that Genesis 1-2 are intended to be a complete description of the emergence of biological diversity then I, arguing that the rest of Genesis describes natural selection, can accuse the atheist of unquestioningly buying into a fundamentalist belief and ignoring evidence of natural selection when he could have been rational and skeptical. And I can employ the same argument, in the opposite way, against a fundie.

Another of their weaknesses is the fixation on the God of Abraham. In my experience many atheists were first exposed to formal criticism against religion from learning about the Protestant Reformation in school, but then adapted this attitude toward all religion without realizing how retarded that is. If someone is touchy about God and they seem preoccupied with the Hebrew God and his violent folk tales, I say what they are really doing is going through a psychological process of rejecting their primordial father construct as part of an unresolved Oedipus Complex. And Freud (an atheist) could be right about this whether God exists or not (see I'm a gnostic, not a theist).

I also claim that the Bible itself is the result of natural selection. That gets everyone. You can also bother atheists by asking whether Daoism is a religion or a form of atheist reasoning.

TL;DR: there are many ways to troll atheists

 

[Dudeofteenage]

brb making a lolcow thread on myself.

Don't feed the trolls

 

[tomgirl4life]

basically all internet atheists are lolcows.

Fixed it for you...

I tend to like Penn Jillette's outlook, that we're all agnostics. Some of us are theistic agnostics, some of us are atheistic agnostics, but at the end of the day no one can no for certain whether there is or is not a God.

 

[AppleChrisp]

I identify as a Catholic, although I would probably be more of an "agnostic Catholic" if that makes any sense. Is there a God? I can't say I know for certain. However, when I look at the teachings of Jesus, these are the teachings I want to live by because I believe they lead to personal and community flourishing. I also realize that this isn't for everyone, and that's okay! I know many atheists who are wonderful people, even more wonderful than many so-called Christians. Obviously, you don't need religion to be a good person. The thing I like about Catholicism which differentiates it from other Christian denominations is that Catholicism encourages critical thought. Most atheists are also capable of critical thought. The major problem with *RADICAL* atheism is it's almost cult-like in that people almost seem like they are in a brainwashed state. They spew ideologies from things they have read with little critical thought to back it up. Obviously this can happen with radical Christianity or radical Catholicism as well, which is why radicalization is never a good thing. When atheists become radical it's almost like it does become their religion - to be anti-religion. They become pretty much the exact same thing they are fighting against.

 

[AnOminous]

It's popular among militant atheists/antitheists to say that not believing in God is more logically valid than believing, since it involves no unproven beliefs, and therefore should be legally more valid. This would be the basis for banning religious practices and symbols from public spaces.

The problem with this is that there is evidence, viz., the universe itself and all its contents. The dispute is in the interpretation of that evidence. Theists view the phenomena they experience as indicative of the existence of a deity. This is no less valid an interpretation than that which would make no hypothesis at all regarding what first caused the existence of the universe. Arguably, it is a more founded interpretation than specifically concluding the lack of existence of a creator.

One can make specific conclusions that more or less disprove specific religious beliefs, such as that that the earth is flat, that humans and long-extinct dinosaurs coexisted, and similar nonsense. Those are separable from the general proposition of the existence of God, though.

I think the best conclusion is that the God proposition is indeterminate and, effectively, unknowable.

I have a proof of this but it is too large autistic to fit in this margin.

 

[Meowthkip]

For all the peeps in this thread defining "agnostic" as "don't know, don't care," I think a better term for that is apatheism (which is also more fun to say).

As for the more "euphoric" atheists, they're hella lulzy to be sure, but I also see where they're coming from in a way that I think most people don't. Atheists who were raised in more kum-by-yah, love-thy-neighbor religious communities often don't realize the extent to which religion can be used to control and punish people, just like in a cult. And a lot of times, if not the majority, this type of vitriol is the by-product of escaping from (and coping with) a lifetime of abuse. Physical, emotional, religious, you name it. For their entire lives, the concept of god and religion was used as a club to beat them into submission until they were too hurt and afraid to step out of line anymore.

Breaking free of that cultic mindset is incredibly difficult and painful, and can also result in people losing their family, friends, children, sometimes their job, pretty much their entire lives. That kind of pain and loss triggers a wellspring of anger as they grieve for their losses, and a lot of that anger is directed at the concepts used to hurt them, as well as at the types of people who wield it as such. Take a look at some of the stories from Homeschoolers Anonymous, and you'll get a better idea of what I mean.

TL;DR - A lot of "angry atheists" are hurting and grieving after escaping abusive families and situations. Give them a few years and they'll probably get over it. If they're doing it professionally, however, chances are they're just dicks.

I guess I'm an apatheist then. More people are familiar with the term "agnostic," however, so I'll just stick with that if I explain my views on religion.

And I totally agree with you on the most vocal atheists usually being the ones who were abused with religion. I had used The Amazing Atheist as an example before, but I think he exemplifies it best; he is so obviously coming from a place of hurt and betrayal that he just radiates it.

While my experiences with Catholicism were nowhere near as traumatic, the negative experiences I had still make me feel bitter. I can only imagine how hurt some of these types must be.

 

[Arctic]

This thread needs to get back on track.

 

[dabluearmedbandit]

There's a guy I have some classes with that has a legit Amish neckbeard. Like it literally hangs like stringy Beanie Baby fur and stops right before his chin. He claims he is a "Stoic Atheist". He always spergs out in my Age of Discovery history class because without Christianity, Western Civilization as we know it wouldn't exist and he just can't fucking deal with that.

But anyway, he wrote a whole paper and gave a presentation about how the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary and Europeans would have made the same colonization efforts even if they hadn't been religiously oppressed.

It was pretty euphoric for me to watch him flunk a class over his dumb fake edgelord beliefs.

 

[AnOminous]

But anyway, he wrote a whole paper and gave a presentation about how the Protestant Reformation was completely unnecessary and Europeans would have made the same colonization efforts even if they hadn't been religiously oppressed.

What? But the Protestant Reformation actually was a huge setback to the religious oppression of the Catholic Church over Europe.

It certainly had its own negative aspects, but that's what its importance is.

 

[Idling]

As for the more "euphoric" atheists, they're hella lulzy to be sure, but I also see where they're coming from in a way that I think most people don't. Atheists who were raised in more kum-by-yah, love-thy-neighbor religious communities often don't realize the extent to which religion can be used to control and punish people, just like in a cult. And a lot of times, if not the majority, this type of vitriol is the by-product of escaping from (and coping with) a lifetime of abuse. Physical, emotional, religious, you name it. For their entire lives, the concept of god and religion was used as a club to beat them into submission until they were too hurt and afraid to step out of line anymore.

[...]

TL;DR - A lot of "angry atheists" are hurting and grieving after escaping abusive families and situations. Give them a few years and they'll probably get over it. If they're doing it professionally, however, chances are they're just dicks.

I think at its core roots, the while modern atheist movement probably started as a legitimate critic and reaction to the more extreme and ethical questionable religious practices and the problems those caused in the world. I don't think that's where most euphoric atheists come from though. There seem to be a lot coming from a purely secular background, who never had any direct contact with extreme religion. Their mindset seems to stem from watching a lot of youtube videos on the topic instead, choosing to be atheists, because they believe it makes them intellectually superior somehow.

I think this mirrors the development of other extreme and lolcowwothy groups. Communism was a political movement that arose from the extreme social problems acompanying early capitalism, social justice from the very real mistreatments of women and racial or cultural minorities. Over time those movements attracted a lot of assholes - in those cases college-socialists and tumblr-style-sjws respectively - who joined the movements without real understanding of the problems and arguments behind them, often more driven by their egos than by real concern.

And the same thing happened to the atheist movement. It might have initially been build upon valid critic of extreme religion or on intelligent arguments, but then it got overrun by a large crowd who neither did fully understand the arguments behind it, nor had any deeper interest but stroking their own ego.

Spoiler: Philosophical sperging on the whole Agnostic debate

Wow, this takes me back ten years, when I was young, thought I had the whole world figured out and joined some philosophy forums, behaving just the way you'd expect of any teenager posting on a philosophy forum. I still enjoy discussing philosophical topics with people, but doing it on the internet often times feels like reverting to my old teenage self - so don't take anything that follows to heart too much, regardless of how off-topic or stupid it seems.

The point I'm trying to make is you either believe there is one or you do not. Saying "I don't know" isn't called being agnostic it's called being on the fence. "going through my athiest phase" is not a valid statement because the only way to not be an atheist is to become a theist. This is similar to saying "I went through my heterosexual phase. But now I'm more of a sexually curious person" when the latter statement doesn't reject the former.

I think you are correct, if we take the term agnostic by its traditional meaning, but I don't think that's what it means in any casual setting. Most people will use it to mean something akin to "weak atheism" (Not believing "God exists" - [¬B(∃g)] ). Since a lot of both atheists and theists use the term Atheism incorecctly to mean "strong atheism" (Believing "God does not exists" - [B(¬∃g)] - this does also explain the whole "atheist-phase" stuff), people were looking for some common term to mean that they neither believed in God, nor were as violently opposed to it as many of the more outspoken atheists, so they just started to call themselves Agnostic.
Yes I know that this usage of the terms is technically incorrect, but that's just how everyday language works. It'll change over time. I know it is aggravating to know how those terms are misused, but just nitpicking how people got definitions wrong doesn't make for a good argument in itself too.


That being said I would disagree with the notion that "I don't know whether God exists" is nescessarily an useless or on-the-fence answer (although a lot of 'agnostics' might use it in that way). If taken serious this is actually a very valid position.
It could be taken to mean, that the most rational mindset is "Neither believing that God exists, nor believing that he doesn't" [¬B(∃g) & ¬B(¬∃g)]. There are some cases where it might be seen as most rational for an agent to neither affirm nor reject a proposition.
If a coin is flipped into the air, than the proposition "The coin will land heads up in a few seconds" can be either true or false, but at the same time it would be absolutely rational to neither hold the believe that this statement is true, nor that it is false - in fact doing so might be considered irrational. A rational agent may might guess wether the coin will show heads or tails, but that does not constitute a believe, that this guess will come true. A person stating, that they don't know whether the coin will show heads or tails is not just "sitting on the fence".
An 'Agnostic' would have to prove, that the proposition "God exists" behaves the same way as "Will this coin when flipped the next time land on its head" or would have to give another argument as to why their lack of an answer would constitute a valid response to the question "Does God exist?". "I don't know" is then not a way to dodge answering the question, but an answer itself, rejecting both theism as well as 'atheism'.