Euphoric atheists

[Some Badger]

I'm 90% sure that this has already been said, but why not?
For a group that doesn't believe in god, they sure love to ramble about him 24/7.

It all reeks of cope to me. They can’t actually disprove the existence of a higher power, but religious fundamentalists meanwhile are a much lower hanging fruit.

With that said, it’s not 1979 anymore. Unprovoked dunking on fundies doesn’t make you look like some countercultural edgelord; it just makes you look like an asshole.

 

[Firewater]

Why does Neil always have to be a douchebag around Christmas?

Isn't he a douchebag all year long?

 

[Slap47]

Santa is abuse.

 

[Tootsie Bear]

Sorry for my lateness in posting these. I was feeling ill and just wanted to sleep.

 

[Shaka Brah]

View attachment 2829115


Sorry for my lateness in posting these. I was feeling ill and just wanted to sleep.

Saying this stuff is how you know people never read the Gospel.

Just to address the muh gays thing, in Matthew 19 Jesus affirms that the intended course is for men and women to marry, and that you can only divorce a woman if she's an adulteress. When the disciples cynically respond with basically "Why even get married then?" he replies with a metaphor suggesting that the only reason not to be married to a woman is if you're celibate for reasons of faith, or because you have no choice and can't do it at all (such as a eunuch).

Nobody in Jesus' time would have allowed the thought to cross their mind that they should ask him if it was okay to marry a man, or what his stance on abortion was. It was self-evidently wrong and against nature to do either of those things. And yet he still affirmed the wrongness of homosexuality without being asked directly, by way of the question he was asked.

 

[Newman's Lovechild]

Why does Neil always have to be a douchebag around Christmas?

Shit, I had to go back to notice that was Neil deGrasse Tyson. I skimmed and automatically assumed it was some random, edgy euphoric, MATI that everyone else got invited to Christmas dinner.

That put a whole extra layer of 'shut up you embarassment' on it.

Also, lie to your children about Santa Claus. Maybe then they won't turn out like William Gillis.

 

[Hyro]

Shit, I had to go back to notice that was Neil deGrasse Tyson. I skimmed and automatically assumed it was some random, edgy euphoric, MATI that everyone else got invited to Christmas dinner.

That put a whole extra layer of 'shut up you embarassment' on it.

Also, lie to your children about Santa Claus. Maybe then they won't turn out like William Gillis.

It's funny considering he said he doesn't consider himself an atheist because he thinks the term is associated with annoying people, yet is quite literally that exact kind of person himself.

 

[ShortBusDriver]

Why does Neil always have to be a douchebag around Christmas?

A few years back he indicated he was celebrating a special person on December 25th, implying Christmas before stating Isaac Newton.

It was really bizarre when you consider Newton's rather famous quote of his dislike of athiests.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Saying this stuff is how you know people never read the Gospel.

Just to address the muh gays thing, in Matthew 19 Jesus affirms that the intended course is for men and women to marry, and that you can only divorce a woman if she's an adulteress. When the disciples cynically respond with basically "Why even get married then?" he replies with a metaphor suggesting that the only reason not to be married to a woman is if you're celibate for reasons of faith, or because you have no choice and can't do it at all (such as a eunuch).

Nobody in Jesus' time would have allowed the thought to cross their mind that they should ask him if it was okay to marry a man, or what his stance on abortion was. It was self-evidently wrong and against nature to do either of those things. And yet he still affirmed the wrongness of homosexuality without being asked directly, by way of the question he was asked.

Some of them know, they just know that many Christians are too lazy to read the bible. They do this same kind of shit with pagan beliefs too.

Original Hippocratic oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.
I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master's children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.
With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.
Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.
Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.
I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.
Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.
Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast.
If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate!

Latest revised Hippocratic oath

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.
Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter.
May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

The Hippocratic Oath: The Original and Revised Version - The Practo Blog for Doctors

A brief history of the Classic and Modern Hippocratic Oath, along with print-ready pdf posters to download and frame.

doctors.practo.com

The Hippocratic Oath: The Original and Revised Version - The Practo B…

archived 29 Jun 2021 03:21:20 UTC

archive.fo

 

[LillWeeb]

From a video of a papal mass
View attachment 2819550

The Atheistic obsession with debunking Santa for children is strange. They should do the opposite if they want to encourage skeptical thinking. Hype up Santa as gospel truth and then shatter it like normal families do.

As a Christian i don't get why atheist butthurt over Santa, He has almost nothing to due with the actual st Nicolaus. And for many Christians from our perspective Santa Claus is not really liked at all as is seen as either just empty consumerism or idolatry at worse. Im not sure why they think insulting Santa means anything to us.

 

[Shaka Brah]

As a Christian i don't get why atheist butthurt over Santa, He has almost nothing to due with the actual st Nicolaus. And for many Christians from our perspective Santa Claus is not really liked at all as is seen as either just empty consumerism or idolatry at worse. Im not sure why they think insulting Santa means anything to us.

They think Christians must worship consumer idols because they do.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

I don't even know where to start with this one.

 

[Adamska]

View attachment 2835306
I don't even know where to start with this one.

I think the funniest shit spouted by these idiots was Constantine enforcing Trinitarianism myself, though ignoring Peter's role in things is pretty amazing too.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

View attachment 2835306
I don't even know where to start with this one.

Paul creating the Catholic Church is literally a Nazi thing. I always laugh when I see them bring it up because I am absolutely certain they're not aware of that.

 

[Mr Metron666]

View attachment 2829110

Santa is abuse.

As a Christian i don't get why atheist butthurt over Santa, He has almost nothing to due with the actual st Nicolaus. And for many Christians from our perspective Santa Claus is not really liked at all as is seen as either just empty consumerism or idolatry at worse. Im not sure why they think insulting Santa means anything to us.

It’s probably because they see belief in Santa (and probably the Easter bunny & Tooth Fairy) as a form of religion or being comparable to religion and so treat it as such.

Paul creating the Catholic Church is literally a Nazi thing. I always laugh when I see them bring it up because I am absolutely certain they're not aware of that.

You forget these people hold misconceptions about the alleged pagan origins of various Christian holidays (Easter, Christmas, Halloween etc), which all ironically originate from the ravings of 19th century fundies.

 

[Sarah Connor]

For people who don't believe in God they sure like to talk about him a lot

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

Paul creating the Catholic Church is literally a Nazi thing. I always laugh when I see them bring it up because I am absolutely certain they're not aware of that.

"Early Christianity totally agreed with progressives about troons, gays, socialism, abortion, and women 'priests', and Christianity would be a non-hierarchical, New Age religion led by a lesbian Marxist theorist if St Paul didn't invent homophobia" is something you hear a lot from progressive "Christians", so maybe Atheist Forum decided to use that argument.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

"Early Christianity totally agreed with progressives about troons, gays, socialism, abortion, and women 'priests', and Christianity would be a non-hierarchical, New Age religion led by a lesbian Marxist theorist if St Paul didn't invent homophobia" is something you hear a lot from progressive "Christians", so maybe Atheist Forum decided to use that argument.

The early church used to go rescue infants left to die from exposure (aka abortion in antiquity if you couldn't get someone to give you an abortifacient) which is why a lot of detractors like Celsus accused them of eating babies. I don't...really think there's any question about the abortion issue.

Realistically trying to shape Christianity to Current Year is a fool's errand no matter who is doing it.

 

[DDBCAE CBAADCBE]

I always thought it the most bullshit thing these assholes do. If you're going to shit on Christian organizations for their trash, then sure as hell shit on the other religious groups for their trash too.

I shit on all religious groups... but especially Mormons. More than anyone else the Mormons deserve to be bullied for believing in magical underwear.

 

[Mistress of Troon]

Saying this stuff is how you know people never read the Gospel.

Just to address the muh gays thing, in Matthew 19 Jesus affirms that the intended course is for men and women to marry, and that you can only divorce a woman if she's an adulteress. When the disciples cynically respond with basically "Why even get married then?" he replies with a metaphor suggesting that the only reason not to be married to a woman is if you're celibate for reasons of faith, or because you have no choice and can't do it at all (such as a eunuch).

Nobody in Jesus' time would have allowed the thought to cross their mind that they should ask him if it was okay to marry a man, or what his stance on abortion was. It was self-evidently wrong and against nature to do either of those things. And yet he still affirmed the wrongness of homosexuality without being asked directly, by way of the question he was asked.

The thing is that homosexuality didn't exist around this time, it's a modern invention. It's like when people say that Greeks and Muslims were once very accepting of homosexuality, which doesn't make any sense. Yes, they were pretty okay with people having sexual experiences with the same sex or love affairs, but there was no gay identity and hence the idea that "Because a man and a woman can marry, I should too! Everything else is discrimination and I want equality!" wouldn't have made sense to those people. Marriage was more about reproduction and not about love. Hence why certain Muslim leaders had more than 100 wifes. Furthermore there were a lot of rules who could fuck who: A rich powerful older man getting fucked in the ass by a young poor man would have been considered distateful by the Greeks and Muslims.
Judaism was much more condemning about it and it was very probably the case that people weren't very tolerant about different sexual experiences. When Christianity spread to Europe however, homosexual behaviour was kind of still accepted, probably due to former pagan beliefs. The modern idea that sexuality is actually a part of your identity has probably been caused by protestantism and later on the enlighenment and/or modernism. When France and Turkey were the first countries to legalize homosexual behaviour again somewhen in the 17th century, their idea was definitely not that people will later on develop actual identities around sexual behaviour.

But again, the modern concept of homosexuality never existed and to be honest the ancient understanding of sexuality (as a transaction of power) made much more sense and seems to be much more authentic than anything we are doing today, no matter from a liberal or conservative view. It's quite bizarre that when I'm thinking about killing someone, I wouldn't be called a muderer unless I murdered someone. However, just by claming that someone has (or had just once) "gay thoughts" he'd be considered homosexual by society, even if he never had any actual homosexual experiences. And is someone really homosexual if he only ever loved a man on a platonic level, but never had any sexual intercourse with a man? And what about a man who only loved women but actually had some sexual experiences with other man? Sodomy originally wasn't just about homosexual intercourse, but just a very general term for any sexual intercourse that wasn't for reproduction. Hence, a woman giving a man a blowjob was sodomy. So for Medieval Catholic Christians in Western Europe it would have been quite clear that the love from a man to a man is good and pure, whereas doing sodomy would have been considered bad. Even then it doesn't change the fact that Medieval Catholics would have been mostly much more lenient about sodomy than many 20th century atheists who thought that you could cure the homosexual (now an identity) by giving him hormones or electroshock therapy. I've read once that around 25% of men actually admitted that they once or more kissed a man in the 70's, whereas nowadays it's only around 5% of men, even though more people than ever claim to be a part of the "LGBT" community. It's the same problem with people calling the practice of a third gender in certain cultures as a proof that transgenderism is totally fine and not a modern invention, without understanding that those people's understanding of a third sex is totally different than the way modern Western academia understands it.