Euphoric atheists

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Wait, these idiots actually think the SOVIET UNION was a good thing? I had a professor who was from the USSR, who spent time in a gulag, who could tell this assbulbs a thing or two. It's a good thing I'm drinking right now.
I know how you feel. I have to be drunk when I read or watch the more euphoric shit.
 
So Kiwis, what are your thoughts on labels like "ignostic" or "apatheistic" for those who simply don't give a fuck about religion? I came across the terms the other day.

I say labeling the absence of caring about spirituality, especially the differing kinds of not caring, seems as banal as the difference between Christians and Catholics. Not only that, but I say adopting a label at all defeats the entire purpose of not caring.
 
So Kiwis, what are your thoughts on labels like "ignostic" or "apatheistic" for those who simply don't give a fuck about religion? I came across the terms the other day.
Saying "I never gave much thought to it" costs hardly more syllables than "I'm apatheistic".
 
So Kiwis, what are your thoughts on labels like "ignostic" or "apatheistic" for those who simply don't give a fuck about religion? I came across the terms the other day.

I say labeling the absence of caring about spirituality, especially the differing kinds of not caring, seems as banal as the difference between Christians and Catholics. Not only that, but I say adopting a label at all defeats the entire purpose of not caring.
One of my best friends fits this category. Her term for it is "areligious". Meaning, not really expressing disbelief in a higher power, just not making it a concern in her life. I think that's a fitting label.
 
So Kiwis, what are your thoughts on labels like "ignostic" or "apatheistic" for those who simply don't give a fuck about religion? I came across the terms the other day.

I say labeling the absence of caring about spirituality, especially the differing kinds of not caring, seems as banal as the difference between Christians and Catholics. Not only that, but I say adopting a label at all defeats the entire purpose of not caring.
Apistevist is probably the most accurate word to describe the majority of atheist, especially those who aren't active in atheist communities. It means without faith.
 
Found this on Tumblr (of coarse).

moron.png


Thoughts?
 
Found this on Tumblr (of coarse).

View attachment 54198

Thoughts?
Whoever made that poster isn't smart, since humans are still primates. Just like how birds are still dinosaurs and whales are still mammals. There's also the matter of the fact he's off by a billion years for life to appear, and damn wrong for stating when we split from our bro the chimp. There's also an attempt to use the idea that if one idea is wrong, the whole thing is wrong. Rather funny considering that's what creationists positively love to do. If I was just are dumb, I'd say his whole statement is wrong which proves that the bible is right due to fucking up several things.
 
Saying that a religion is invalid because it borrows from older mythology is certainly a bizarre argument. Not to mention a useless one. I mean, most people know that Christianity and Islam believe the stories of the Torah’s Jewish prophets and built off them or that the Romans took from the Greeks. In fact some this "evidence" was forged by historical revisionists; I know Gerald Massey, who claimed Jesus was a copy of Horus, has largely been discredited by Egyptologists for this very reason. If you know very little about mostly extinct pagan mythologies, which I’m sure a lot of these guys wouldn’t bother researching anyway because it’s not science, I’m sure saying that Jesus and Horus both rose guys from the dead is enough to sway them, while also ignoring that the latter guy has a falcon head and jacked off into his foe’s salads as revenge for being raped… actually I’m starting to wish the Jews did steal from the Egyptians now…
 
Saying that a religion is invalid because it borrows from older mythology is certainly a bizarre argument. Not to mention a useless one. I mean, most people know that Christianity and Islam believe the stories of the Torah’s Jewish prophets and built off them or that the Romans took from the Greeks. In fact some this "evidence" was forged by historical revisionists; I know Gerald Massey, who claimed Jesus was a copy of Horus, has largely been discredited by Egyptologists for this very reason. If you know very little about mostly extinct pagan mythologies, which I’m sure a lot of these guys wouldn’t bother researching anyway because it’s not science, I’m sure saying that Jesus and Horus both rose guys from the dead is enough to sway them, while also ignoring that the latter guy has a falcon head and jacked off into his foe’s salads as revenge for being raped… actually I’m starting to wish the Jews did steal from the Egyptians now…
As much as how we can see similarities in some religions, there are certain differences in them like with what you mentioned of Horus. If these people were to actually research anything about these religions beyond what they hear, they could at least make some better arguments. Hell, they could just say something of how Jesus isn't really some messiah not based off other religions but rather they can also speak of how in Israel, there were some people either going around to claiming to be messiah or the fact that there was a sect of Israelites who zealots, believing that they would be free of Rome.
 
Wait, these idiots actually think the SOVIET UNION was a good thing? I had a professor who was from the USSR, who spent time in a gulag, who could tell this assbulbs a thing or two. It's a good thing I'm drinking right now.
I was just trying to figure out how endorsement of the USSR and Ayn Rand worship fit under the same fedora, but I probably shouldn't waste brain power on this.
 
I was just trying to figure out how endorsement of the USSR and Ayn Rand worship fit under the same fedora, but I probably shouldn't waste brain power on this.
By stressing Rand's philosophy of following our own self-interest while trying to make some society where everyone is equal? That's my only guess. One wonders if they even bother to research because part of Rand's philosophy follows Laissze-fair capitalism which wouldn't mix well with communism.
 
Last edited:
By stressing Rand's philosophy of following our own self-interest while trying to make some society where everyone is equal? That's my only guess. One wonders if they even bother to research because part of Rand's philosophy follows Laissze-fair capitalism.
They probably just mishmash anything they deem sufficiently edgy into their worldview stew.
 
They probably just mishmash anything they deem sufficiently edgy into their worldview stew.
That is more likely. They do exude some edge and Rand mixed with the Soviet Union helps with that aside from trying to say some overused line about how they are intelligent compared to a 1000 people who follow a religion just because they don't follow it.
 
STHZGow.jpg

Someone took the time to Sharpie over "In God We Trust" on $500 worth of bills, haha.

Also:

MEhxQRN.jpg
LGCo8u9.jpg
 
View attachment 54518
Someone took the time to Sharpie over "In God We Trust" on $500 worth of bills, haha.

Also:

View attachment 54519 View attachment 54520
The first one, it's just words. Sure one can bring up separation of church and state but on that same note, it's just words. Did they trigger the person with the sharpie?
Second just screams "ow, the edge". Also sure there are atheist that have dull minds since stupidity is in everyone.
Third, as much as how the euphoric says God is a mass-murderer, it doesn't excuse one from saying "hit the gym" and "cover yourself up". There are atheist and euphorics who can do it better without being naked.
 
Back
Top Bottom