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
Especially when every single thing Christians are accused of, Muslims do and do it worse, as well as things Christians don't do at all any more. Misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, killing people for leaving the religion, literal slavery, etc.
Concerning the slavery thing, when I saw atheists in Youtube comment sections and elsewhere around 2012-13ish, they would always, ALWAYS say that the Bible promoted slavery, murder, and rape. And they were always parroting that same exact talking point, too word for word.
 
Concerning the slavery thing, when I saw atheists in Youtube comment sections and elsewhere around 2012-13ish, they would always, ALWAYS say that the Bible promoted slavery, murder, and rape. And they were always parroting that same exact talking point, too word for word.
The Old Testament did call for brutality quite a bit, but considering that said violence was against particularly vile pagan societies, it's not hard to see why it would request that. Of course, they then had to ignore the New Testament's more merciful message and try to push a few lines against violent slave revolts and beatifying marital devotion to try to treat the entire Bible as an evil document.
 
The Old Testament did call for brutality quite a bit, but considering that said violence was against particularly vile pagan societies, it's not hard to see why it would request that. Of course, they then had to ignore the New Testament's more merciful message and try to push a few lines against violent slave revolts and beatifying marital devotion to try to treat the entire Bible as an evil document.
Sometimes now they take the opposite tack, and claim it's an antisemitic book because it shows Jews doing unsavory things to people they hated.

 
Sometimes now they take the opposite tack, and claim it's an antisemitic book because it shows Jews doing unsavory things to people they hated.
To be fair, Jews have been trying to change Christian and Muslim prayers and holy books for some time now.

Every time the Catholic Church does anything vaguely related to the Latin Mass, Jews invariably cry anti-Semitism. Why? Because one of the prayers in the Latin Mass begins with the phrase "Let us also pray for the faithless Jews" and asks that the Jews be converted. This is despite the fact that Orthodox Jews literally pray every day that Christians "perish quickly". There are lots of other examples I can point to, but my point stands - Jews will always find some problem with any religion that isn't Jewish, and the fact those Jews might call themselves atheists doesn't change anything.
 
Concerning the slavery thing, when I saw atheists in Youtube comment sections and elsewhere around 2012-13ish, they would always, ALWAYS say that the Bible promoted slavery, murder, and rape. And they were always parroting that same exact talking point, too word for word.
They're worse fundamentalists than the actual fundamentalists.

Yeah there's a bunch of fucked up shit happening in the Bible. Life wasn't exactly easy back then and the Jews were basically surrounded by nations that wanted to kill them and most of the prophetic books are about how the Jews keep fucking up and need to keep it together.

Can they just try to read stuff in context?
 
Not sure if you meant this as a slam against atheists, but if it was, it ain't.
Hitler was an opportunist who would have pretended to believe anything he thought would give him an advantage. He may have been nominally Christian or even a believer, we don't really know, but if he thought some Black Sun/Thule Society type shit would get him ahead, he'd do that, too.
 
Hitler was an opportunist who would have pretended to believe anything he thought would give him an advantage. He may have been nominally Christian or even a believer, we don't really know, but if he thought some Black Sun/Thule Society type shit would get him ahead, he'd do that, too.
Exactly. He was privately very fond of Islam, and lamented that Germany hadn't been conquered by the Ottomans because that would have given them a more warlike religion which he felt was better suited for nation-building. His own beliefs and what he thought was most useful for his goals were not linked, and he seems to have been a utilitarian more than anything.
 
Hitler was an opportunist who would have pretended to believe anything he thought would give him an advantage. He may have been nominally Christian or even a believer, we don't really know, but if he thought some Black Sun/Thule Society type shit would get him ahead, he'd do that, too.
Considering that the Ratzis banned secret society membership later on in their reign, I doubt it.

Myself, I think he believed in a stitched together Christian flavored religion mainly based off of Wagnerian fetishism.
 
Exactly. He was privately very fond of Islam, and lamented that Germany hadn't been conquered by the Ottomans because that would have given them a more warlike religion which he felt was better suited for nation-building. His own beliefs and what he thought was most useful for his goals were not linked, and he seems to have been a utilitarian more than anything.

Hitler was a baptized Catholic but he definitely wasn't practicing and overall, if I had to describe his religion, he'd be an agnostic who saw religion purely through a utilitarian lens.

The Nazi high command did have both your "Black Sun" types into Norse paganism and Theosophy like Heinrich Himmler as well as guys like Joseph Goebbels who was pretty much a euphoric atheist.

Martin Bormann was publicly an atheist but was rumored to be into theistic Satanism or some weird hybrid of Satanism and Vril Society style occultism.

On an odd note, the guy that first wrote about the concept of Vril was Edward Bulwer Lytton, who was the same guy who first wrote "It was a dark and stormy night".
 
You know, I'm starting to get reminded of the "That wasn't true communism" I'd hear cafe communists babble whenever a heavily socialist country starts to fuck up and kill a lot of people publically. Is it really that hard not to get defensive over the coincidental fact that two of the shittiest dictators ever happened to both be lapsed catholics whol literally didn't give a shit?

Like it shouldn't even matter in a thread about fedora tipping idiots who still think it's 2006, but here we are. Don't get me wrong, the idea Hitler and Mussolini, who both actively lost interest and didn't give a rotten fuck about religion, were somehow religious outside of performance, is funny.

But sometimes I get that "It wasn't the true faith" kind of vibe when we get into the weeds here.
 
You know, I'm starting to get reminded of the "That wasn't true communism" I'd hear cafe communists babble whenever a heavily socialist country starts to fuck up and kill a lot of people publically. Is it really that hard not to get defensive over the coincidental fact that two of the shittiest dictators ever happened to both be lapsed catholics whol literally didn't give a shit?

Like it shouldn't even matter in a thread about fedora tipping idiots who still think it's 2006, but here we are. Don't get me wrong, the idea Hitler and Mussolini, who both actively lost interest and didn't give a rotten fuck about religion, were somehow religious outside of performance, is funny.

But sometimes I get that "It wasn't the true faith" kind of vibe when we get into the weeds here.
The fact that neither were particularly devout and were not motivated by their faith is a very important point to make because there's a difference between claiming that a communist regime “wasn’t real communism” when it becomes murderous and collapses, and saying that Hitler and Mussolini were not demonstrations of Catholicism being evil since they were neither religious nor motivated by Catholic principles. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is for situations where something that is part of a demographic is excluded for not fitting the mold, not when the person eating sugared porridge isn’t even from Scotland.
 
The fact that neither were particularly devout and were not motivated by their faith is a very important point to make because there's a difference between claiming that a communist regime “wasn’t real communism” when it becomes murderous and collapses, and saying that Hitler and Mussolini were not demonstrations of Catholicism being evil since they were neither religious nor motivated by Catholic principles. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is for situations where something that is part of a demographic is excluded for not fitting the mold, not when the person eating sugared porridge isn’t even from Scotland.
Well argued on this one; I forgot that technically the commies still claim to follow Marx's underpants gnome tier plan for a utopia.

Mostly just posted since honestly half the time the catholic posters seem to get pretty antsy and over-emphasize and bring up a topic of ridicule or hatred's coincidental faith; MovieBob comes to mind. My choice in expressing that was not well articulated since I wanted to try and state I don't think it's relevant until they open their gob on how faith and their church by technicality works.

Mea culpa on my part.
 
1639872528610.png

1639872551714.png
 
These are two people whose parents actually did give them coal for Christmas when they acted like shits.
 
Drunk irish hobo thinks christians hang around, waiting for lightning bolts to strike people they don't like? And that Trump's a god? I know he's the god-emperor, but still.

Also, posting on Tiktok, argument automatically invalid.

Today phycological damage is still done to those who are taught to believe in him. Children of the poor must be bad because Santa doesn't bring them much if anything and children from families with means are automatically good because Santa always brings them plenty of toys etc. even when they are bad. By the time they learn the truth the damage is done.

Citation needed.

It gets me to thinking about whether he donates to any Christmas toy drives for poor and needy children, or would an ounce of practical compassion undermine his hardline stance of Kringle Man Bad?

While we're here: phycology.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom