Euphoric atheists

[c-no]

View attachment 61334 View attachment 61337

In regards to Iceland, wouldn't saying atheist majority be incorrect since there is data of there being more religious people? And would the correct term in this case be secular in a sense that there is low religious attendance? Even then, one has to like how it seems they make atheism more of a high point than something like jailing corrupt bankers. And with the Christians leaving the Church, wouldn't that mean some just leave the church to find a better church?

wow Golly gee! What an insight! We can't have political extremism without politics, either!

View attachment 61360

The text in the green square certainly is bogus, but "Michael Swarbrick" is a smug douche, too.

View attachment 61361

Extremism can go either way, also gotta like how it implies that extremism comes only from Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths and not other kinds. Also with that Facebook post, one could just say "Gee, another one of those stupid Facebook post" rather than "I can't think for myself". The latter post however could apply to anything on Facebook that people believe without thinking, religious or not.

 

[Accel_Rider]

Ugh, wake up you sheeple

 

[VLAD]

In regards to Iceland, wouldn't saying atheist majority be incorrect since there is data of there being more religious people? And would the correct term in this case be secular in a sense that there is low religious attendance? Even then, one has to like how it seems they make atheism more of a high point than something like jailing corrupt bankers. And with the Christians leaving the Church, wouldn't that mean some just leave the church to find a better church?

Iceland still has a Christian majority population, but that's just because every Icelander is automatically enrolled in the national church upon birth. Attendance and observation is pretty low. And while "unaffiliated" is the largest religious group on the national census, it's not the fastest-growing - that honor goes to Ásatrú, the faith of the ancient pagan gods.

Odin 1, Atheists 0.

 

[Mrs Paul]

Yeah, you never see these jackasses go after say, Scientologists for example. If you point out how fucked up the organization is, they immediately jump up and start with "But Christianity!" Uh...whatever.

 

[Too Many Crooks]

Yeah, you never see these jackasses go after say, Scientologists for example. If you point out how fucked up the organization is, they immediately jump up and start with "But Christianity!" Uh...whatever.

And Scientology was even admitted by L. Ron Hubbard as a scam to make money.

But no, the euphorics love to whine about Christianity and Islam the most, and they love mocking the latter from the safety of their computers /safe space.

This cracked me up so much

 

[Cosmos]

That's right, folks, we're in the aftermath of a horrific tragedy and you know what that means... it's time for

"HOW CAN I USE THIS TRAGEDY TO BROADCAST MY AGENDA TO ANYONE WHO WILL HEAR IT"!

*studio audience cheers while confetti is popped*

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

"BAN ALL RELIGION"


I keep hearing this, over and over. Those exact words. Ban religion, our problems go away. Ban religion. I have to ask, what exactly does banning religion entail? Who is going to ban it? Who will enforce the ban? What's the penalty of breaking the ban?

If these atheists really think that'll solve our problems, let's hear them out.... but I want to hear them actually explain themselves, and not yell bumper sticker slogans. Because what they're asking for is, quite literally, some governmental or super-governmental authority to deprive people of their ability to live their lives as they wish, presumably under the penalty of imprisonment or death. That's not hyperbole. There are 7 billion people on this planet and about half claim some variety of spiritual belief. If you want to take that away from them, it's not going to happen peacefully. Euphoric Atheists are calling for the use of force, so let's see how imposing their will on half the population will cause less conflict.

I'm all ears.

 

[Cosmos]

"BAN ALL RELIGION"


I keep hearing this, over and over. Those exact words. Ban religion, our problems go away. Ban religion. I have to ask, what exactly does banning religion entail? Who is going to ban it? Who will enforce the ban? What's the penalty of breaking the ban?

If these atheists really think that'll solve our problems, let's hear them out.... but I want to hear them actually explain themselves, and not yell bumper sticker slogans. Because what they're asking for is, quite literally, some governmental or super-governmental authority to deprive people of their ability to live their lives as they wish, presumably under the penalty of imprisonment or death. That's not hyperbole. There are 7 billion people on this planet and about half claim some variety of spiritual belief. If you want to take that away from them, it's not going to happen peacefully. Euphoric Atheists are calling for the use of force, so let's see how imposing their will on half the population will cause less conflict.

I'm all ears.

There is no possible way to "ban" religion without causing grievous violations of human rights. The Soviets tried to ban religion, and it entailed burning churches, murdering priests, and raping nuns while criminalizing faith itself. I can't understand how anyone could look at the persecution of millions and think "Yeah, that looks like a great idea!"

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

There is no possible way to "ban" religion without causing grievous violations of human rights. The Soviets tried to ban religion, and it entailed burning churches, murdering priests, and raping nuns while criminalizing faith itself. I can't understand how anyone could look at the persecution of millions and think "Yeah, that looks like a great idea!"

It's because, for a group that praises themselves for being rational and intellectual, a lot of their ideas are very poorly thought out.

 

[DykesDykesChina]

The communists were correct in only one ideology, ban all religions

Spoiler: Sure?

• God ~ Dialectic Materialism
• The Choosen People ~ The Proletariat
• Jesus/The Prophet ~ Marx/Lenin
• Apocalypse ~ The World Revolution
• Heaven ~ Classless Society
• Hell ~ punishment of the capitalists
• etc.

Marxism-Leninism is to a great degree influenced by protestant theology, so much that one could be tempted to say it's a reworking of the New Testament without supernatural forces, where God has been replaced by an abstract principle (Dialectic Materialism). The same goes BTW for Transhumanism/Singularitarianism.

I didn't create the above list, it's adapted from Russell's "History of Western Philosophy".

 

[Adamska]

There is no possible way to "ban" religion without causing grievous violations of human rights. The Soviets tried to ban religion, and it entailed burning churches, murdering priests, and raping nuns while criminalizing faith itself. I can't understand how anyone could look at the persecution of millions and think "Yeah, that looks like a great idea!"

This requires these guys to actually be well read rather than having them parrot things other people have said (just like fundamentalists) be capable of reasoning their points (again, just like a fundamentalist), and to actually do something with their lives to be able to affect situations to their advantage (which fundamentalists often do).

In short, they're more lazy creationists, since even creationists will get off their ass usually and try and peddle their views for wider consumption via politicking.

 

[c-no]

"BAN ALL RELIGION"


I keep hearing this, over and over. Those exact words. Ban religion, our problems go away. Ban religion. I have to ask, what exactly does banning religion entail? Who is going to ban it? Who will enforce the ban? What's the penalty of breaking the ban?

If these atheists really think that'll solve our problems, let's hear them out.... but I want to hear them actually explain themselves, and not yell bumper sticker slogans. Because what they're asking for is, quite literally, some governmental or super-governmental authority to deprive people of their ability to live their lives as they wish, presumably under the penalty of imprisonment or death. That's not hyperbole. There are 7 billion people on this planet and about half claim some variety of spiritual belief. If you want to take that away from them, it's not going to happen peacefully. Euphoric Atheists are calling for the use of force, so let's see how imposing their will on half the population will cause less conflict.

I'm all ears.

And if some euphoric tried to say the religious guy is being violent because he doesn't want to give up his own belief because "ban all religions", wouldn't that itself is just forcing ones beliefs on others. In essence, wouldn't that mean the euphoric is shoving his penis down someones throat by wanting to say ban all religions? Also in response @Cosmos post, Congress still cares about Obamacare? Either way, doesn't matter who you make that oath to, whether it's to "all of humanity" or some "sky daddy", is one really gonna try and even carry it on? Also, wasn't the clinic shooter said to be a tranny or at least a unabomber look-alike in some way (based off other post)?

 

[Mrs Paul]

They're basically the fundie atheists.

 

[Cosmos]

Oh, and I forgot to mention, there's actually ongoing campaigns to ban certain religions in officially atheistic (usually Communist) countries such as China and North Korea.

• In China, there's an ongoing persecution campaign against practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual practice that involves meditation and slow-moving exercises. Since 1999, hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in "re-education through labor" camps, prisons and other detention facilities for refusing to renounce the spiritual practice. They have been subject to torture, psychiatric abuse, forced labor, and other atrocities. And you think that's bad? Horrifically, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that tens of thousands of Falun Gong adherents have been harvested for their organs.
  
• Although the campaign against Falun Gong practitioners is the most intense, China is also known for persecuting other religious groups, especially those who do not belong to China's five officially sanctioned religious organizations (Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association); even those groups are still subject to restrictions and controls under the Chinese government. Unregistered groups face far worse treatment.
• North Korea's freedom of religion status is abysmal, although given how dreadful the rest of its human rights track record is that's hardly surprising.
• Atheistic countries are far from the only offenders, though. 7 of the 10 countries that were listed as having the worst grades when it comes to government restrictions on religion are Islamic (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Malaysia and Indonesia). The rest of the article elaborates on just how restricted freedom of faith is in Muslim countries and how non-Muslim minorities are persecuted. Even though these countries are suppressing non-Muslim religions (and lack of religion) for their own religious reasons, their horrific treatment of non-Muslims and their efforts to purge all other religions and ideologies from their countries until only Islam remains should give you a good idea as to what banning religion looks like.

 

[RedneckQuadFeed]

WatchMojo.com recently made a Top 10 list of the most controversial YouTube channels, and some slots that were filled were by The Amazing Atheist, DarkMatter2525, JaclynGlenn (in a dishonorable mention), and SargonofAkkad. Thanks WatchMojo, you just give these assholes media presence, and will undoubtedly cause them to have a subscriber boost. Fucking great.

 

[Hat]

WatchMojo.com recently made a Top 10 list of the most controversial YouTube channels, and some slots that were filled were by The Amazing Atheist, DarkMatter2525, JaclynGlenn (in a dishonorable mention), and SargonofAkkad. Thanks WatchMojo, you just give these assholes media presence, and will undoubtedly cause them to have a subscriber boost. Fucking great.

Does SargonofAkkad really make videos about Atheism? I don't really watch his videos, but I was under the impression that he focused mostly on Feminism.

 

[chimpburgers]

Does SargonofAkkad really make videos about Atheism? I don't really watch his videos, but I was under the impression that he focused mostly on Feminism.

That and Gamergate stuff, but then there are videos like this he's done before focusing on religion in politics.

 

[Cave]

It seems to me that these folks let Atheism consume their entire personality. They act only as a talking head for whatever they've let consume them and always drive the conversation back to their obsession.

They just need to relax. From what I can gather, they seem pretty bitter. Not the kind of people I'd like to hang around with.

"BAN ALL RELIGION"


I keep hearing this, over and over. Those exact words. Ban religion, our problems go away. Ban religion. I have to ask, what exactly does banning religion entail? Who is going to ban it? Who will enforce the ban? What's the penalty of breaking the ban?

If these atheists really think that'll solve our problems, let's hear them out.... but I want to hear them actually explain themselves, and not yell bumper sticker slogans. Because what they're asking for is, quite literally, some governmental or super-governmental authority to deprive people of their ability to live their lives as they wish, presumably under the penalty of imprisonment or death. That's not hyperbole. There are 7 billion people on this planet and about half claim some variety of spiritual belief. If you want to take that away from them, it's not going to happen peacefully. Euphoric Atheists are calling for the use of force, so let's see how imposing their will on half the population will cause less conflict.

I'm all ears.

Not to mention the fact that this is assuming religion is itself a bad thing. Religion, throughout history, has been a tool for the layman. It takes difficult moral concepts and breaks them down utilizing the art of story-telling. This makes the moral easier to digest and much more prudent to the listener as they have a vested interest in acting out these morals. Religion, I feel, can be quite positive and beneficial.

There is always going to be misinterpretation. People see what they want to see and read what they want to read. Violent people are like this: they'll read anything and relate it back to violence. It doesn't need to be religion. It can be any idea, thought or ideology. The only way to stop violence is, in part, by destroying the concept of memes, ideologies and concepts themselves.

It's a fool's errand to try to do any of this. As you've stated, it would trample upon human liberties and could only be convinced thoroughly through violence. That's not the way to go about it.

 

[Reddit Avenger]

Not to mention the fact that this is assuming religion is itself a bad thing. Religion, throughout history, has been a tool for the layman. It takes difficult moral concepts and breaks them down utilizing the art of story-telling. This makes the moral easier to digest and much more prudent to the listener as they have a vested interest in acting out these morals. Religion, I feel, can be quite positive and beneficial.

There is always going to be misinterpretation. People see what they want to see and read what they want to read. Violent people are like this: they'll read anything and relate it back to violence. It doesn't need to be religion. It can be any idea, thought or ideology. The only way to stop violence is, in part, by destroying the concept of memes, ideologies and concepts themselves.

It's a fool's errand to try to do any of this. As you've stated, it would trample upon human liberties and could only be convinced thoroughly through violence. That's not the way to go about it.

I've always thought of religion as a kind of "mirror" into a persons soul, to put it into to the most pretentious way possible.

There's nothing inherently bad about religion, it just by its very nature contorts itself to be whatever someone wants it to be. If someone is naturally a hateful asshole, they'll contort their faith to justify their egregiously cunty behavior. If someone's a charitable, loving person they'll frame their faith to encourage that kind of philanthropy and empathy.

I mean how else can two people read the same exact book and come to two dramatically different conclusions?

 

[AnOminous]

Not to mention the fact that this is assuming religion is itself a bad thing. Religion, throughout history, has been a tool for the layman. It takes difficult moral concepts and breaks them down utilizing the art of story-telling. This makes the moral easier to digest and much more prudent to the listener as they have a vested interest in acting out these morals. Religion, I feel, can be quite positive and beneficial.

The absolute least that can be said about being attached to a conventional religion is that so long as you are, you are unlikely to get suckered into one of the truly destructive cults out there. That would probably justify keeping relatively harmless religions around even if you were euphoric enough to think they had literally no other use.