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
Cosmos said:
I went to private Catholic school K-12 and I can assure everyone that evolution, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc are all taught in Catholic schools.
Click to expand...

The Vatican was only ever waveringly opposed to evolution (as Popes changed), and outright accepted it since Pius XI.
 
Most euphorics barely know shit about science themselves, do you really expect the arrogant little bastards to realize that the people they hate and mock are actually more intelligent than them?
 
Count groudon said:
Most euphorics barely know shit about science themselves, do you really expect the arrogant little bastards to realize that the people they hate and mock are actually more intelligent than them?
Click to expand...

That's what's so funny about not only euphorics, but people who are rabidly "pro-science" in general (read: most of Reddit's userbase). Obviously loving science is a good thing, but the people who constantly brag about how much they know and how they let science guide their lives instead of stupid religions or philosophies usually don't know the first thing about science and have no actual training in the field.

They also tend to be extremely arrogant. Although some scientists are huge, condescending dickbags who think they know everything about everything, many scientists are actually very humble because they know that the pursuit of knowledge is an eternal quest that has no end; we will never know everything, so the most we can do is just keep learning as much as we can. Scientists also tend to be very open to new ideas and viewpoints.
 
Cosmos said:
Obviously loving science is a good thing, but the people who constantly brag about how much they know and how they let science guide their lives instead of stupid religions or philosophies usually don't know the first thing about science and have no actual training in the field.
Click to expand...
You might say, there's a difference between "loving science" and "FUCKING loving science."
 
Cosmos said:
That's what's so funny about not only euphorics, but people who are rabidly "pro-science" in general (read: most of Reddit's userbase).
Click to expand...

What's funny is when they actually seem to worship science like it's a god, and the current prevailing view is essentially gospel.

Even though the good thing about science is actually that it's constantly probing for what it's wrong about.
 
Can corroborate re: Catholic school. We were taught evolutionary biology. Later, in an Orthodox Jewish high school, I was able to take a special course in advanced bio with a focus on neurology. If either of those places were anti-science, they were darn good at hiding it.

Nothing much else to add, but Merry Christmas, Kiwi Farms. And happy holidays and good wishes for the new year and all that jazz. Thanks for being the coolest place on the Internet. :)
 
As someone who went to a Christian School for 10 long years, I can count the number of teachers who did not believe in evolution on one hand. Half of them ended up believing in it by the time I graduated and only one teacher that still believes Creationism is adamant about it.

I really don't see what their big deal is complaining about "Christians don't evolution" as most Christians believe at least the first 5 days were a long long long time and not literal days. Heck, the smartest man I have ever met was an adamant Christian man who taught us that yeah, evolution do real.

Basically, unless you were the SUPER sheltered kid, you believed in some amount of evolution.

And what would these Euphorics do if I said I believed in evolution during a debate? Who knows.

Either way. Have a late and Merry Christmas, fellow Kiwis. Happy Holidays to everyone.
 
Womacker said:
As someone who went to a Christian School for 10 long years, I can count the number of teachers who did not believe in evolution on one hand. Half of them ended up believing in it by the time I graduated and only one teacher that still believes Creationism is adamant about it.

I really don't see what their big deal is complaining about "Christians don't evolution" as most Christians believe at least the first 5 days were a long long long time and not literal days. Heck, the smartest man I have ever met was an adamant Christian man who taught us that yeah, evolution do real.

Basically, unless you were the SUPER sheltered kid, you believed in some amount of evolution.

And what would these Euphorics do if I said I believed in evolution during a debate? Who knows.

Either way. Have a late and Merry Christmas, fellow Kiwis. Happy Holidays to everyone.
Click to expand...

Most people- Christians included- agree that Young Earth Creationists (the people who believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old when in reality it's more like 4.5 billion years) are batshit crazy. That extends to people who think that the world was created in literally seven days. Hilariously, they're not even doing the "literal interpretation of the Bible" thing right, either; the meaning of "day" in the original Hebrew text actually translates to "a period of time," which can range anywhere from one day to a billion years. So instead of "seven days" it's actually "seven periods of time." It's very ambiguous, which makes interpretation of the text that much laxer.

Anyway, merry Christmas lovelies! You guys are amazing and I've loved all the discussion and debate in this thread!
 
Cosmos said:
Most people- Christians included- agree that Young Earth Creationists (the people who believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old when in reality it's more like 4.5 billion years) are batshit crazy. That extends to people who think that the world was created in literally seven days. Hilariously, they're not even doing the "literal interpretation of the Bible" thing right, either; the meaning of "day" in the original Hebrew text actually translates to "a period of time," which can range anywhere from one day to a billion years. So instead of "seven days" it's actually "seven periods of time." It's very ambiguous, which makes interpretation of the text that much laxer.

Anyway, merry Christmas lovelies! You guys are amazing and I've loved all the discussion and debate in this thread!
Click to expand...

What strikes me about that is even the hardcore believers from the Middle Ages didn't read the bible literally.
 
Cosmos said:
Most people- Christians included- agree that Young Earth Creationists (the people who believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old when in reality it's more like 4.5 billion years) are batshit crazy. That extends to people who think that the world was created in literally seven days. Hilariously, they're not even doing the "literal interpretation of the Bible" thing right, either; the meaning of "day" in the original Hebrew text actually translates to "a period of time," which can range anywhere from one day to a billion years. So instead of "seven days" it's actually "seven periods of time." It's very ambiguous, which makes interpretation of the text that much laxer.

Anyway, merry Christmas lovelies! You guys are amazing and I've loved all the discussion and debate in this thread!
Click to expand...

Yeah. Because everyone knows that the major prophets were completely literal at all times. From flying wheels to women hiding in pots, it was all completely literal. Still, wouldn't expect them to know that.
 
Womacker said:
Yeah. Because everyone knows that the major prophets were completely literal at all times. From flying wheels to women hiding in pots, it was all completely literal. Still, wouldn't expect them to know that.
Click to expand...

The argument that one of my theological teachers gave me in high school still rings true for me today, and it applies to everyone who reads the Bible literally (both fundamentalists and euphorics who try to use stories like Adam and Eve or Noah's Arc to "prove" that Judaism and Christianity are fake and illogical). Basically, the argument is that when you read Shakespeare, you're not supposed to take it literally word-for-word. When he says something like "her eyes were sapphires of the deepest blue," he's not saying her eyes are literally gemstones, he's saying that her eyes are a deep and very beautiful shade of blue. It's equally absurd to read the Bible literally because, like Shakespeare's plays and the works of other great writers, it's full of similes, metaphors, allegories, and other literary devices that shouldn't be taken at face value.
 
Womacker said:
Yeah. Because everyone knows that the major prophets were completely literal at all times. From flying wheels to women hiding in pots, it was all completely literal. Still, wouldn't expect them to know that.
Click to expand...
If everything is meant to be taken literally, the end times are going to be a fucking trip.
 
Merry belated CWC-mas :D I come bringing euphoric egomania!





https://twitter.com/skepticnikki/

I love how one of their usernames is "Godless Utopia." They really think that the world will be perfect if religion totally stopped.

wow wow wow
"Your beliefs are wrong and harmful. Let me convert, I mean cure you!"
Fuck you Dorkins.

My hypocrisy meter just broke.

Mother Teresa still accomplished more for human decency than the OP ever will :)
 
Well, they're kind of right about Mother Teresa. There's a LOT of controversy over her, and evidence that she witheld pain killers and various treatment from patients in her hospital, because she believed suffering was "a gift from God", or whatever. I'm not saying she didn't do some good in the world. But I do believe she wasn't quite as saintly as many people believe her to be.
That, however, has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ego. Look at another Peace Prize nominee, Oscar Romero (who I feel deserved it more). As I've said before, religion doesn't really have much to do with good or evil, but how people use it. People can use ANY philosophy to justify their actions. It's a hell of a lot more complex than "religion = good/bad". I don't think anyone would deny that religious fanatics are dangerous. Or that people can use religion to oppress people. (Look at what's going on with ISIS). But life wouldn't be all sunshine and roses if we all of a sudden woke up and religion was gone. We'd find some other shit to argue about. Because humans are assholes.

Oh, and comparing religion to cancer? Fuck that. Fuck cancer.
 
Mrs Paul said:
Well, they're kind of right about Mother Teresa. There's a LOT of controversy over her, and evidence that she witheld pain killers and various treatment from patients in her hospital, because she believed suffering was "a gift from God", or whatever. I'm not saying she didn't do some good in the world. But I do believe she wasn't quite as saintly as many people believe her to be.
That, however, has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ego. Look at another Peace Prize nominee, Oscar Romero (who I feel deserved it more). As I've said before, religion doesn't really have much to do with good or evil, but how people use it. People can use ANY philosophy to justify their actions. It's a hell of a lot more complex than "religion = good/bad". I don't think anyone would deny that religious fanatics are dangerous. Or that people can use religion to oppress people. (Look at what's going on with ISIS). But life wouldn't be all sunshine and roses if we all of a sudden woke up and religion was gone. We'd find some other shit to argue about. Because humans are assholes.

Oh, and comparing religion to cancer? Fuck that. Fuck cancer.
Click to expand...
Yep. As I said in the Gen Zed thread (heh), she also knowingly used dirty needles on kids, thus transmitting preventable diseases. She was also a big fan of the "glory of poverty" belief system. She was absolutely a piece of shit sometimes, but as you said, for the most part, it had little to do with religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom