Euphoric atheists

[eternal dog mongler]

So I take it you wouldn't be interested in any of those things

It's not an actual argument.

If capital A Atheists could just admit that there are things beyond their understanding I'd have no problem with them, but they insist that not only do they know there is no God, but that they know everything else too.

I think we fucked up not making the autistic STEMlords take philosophy of science courses.

SCIENCE IS TRUE AND REAL AND GOOD AND FACTS but also medicine is fucking melting down because of the replication crisis. Science is just an aesthetic for them.

 

[Weeby Catto]

For me, the issue is that you have to believe one of two things:

• An extradimensional entity or entities (God) created the universe
• The universe created itself via time travel

Both of these are equally magical concepts and neither jibes whatsoever with our understanding of the laws of the universe. Yet believing the second one is seen as the Scientific and Rational stance. It makes no sense and it's extremely hypocritical.

There is a theoretical third stance, which is "I don't know how the universe came to be and I probably never will", but good luck finding a talking head willing to admit it. Scientists™ believe the big bang theory, thus if you want to appear smart, you have to go along with it.

If capital A Atheists could just admit that there are things beyond their understanding I'd have no problem with them, but they insist that not only do they know there is no God, but that they know everything else too.

A huge fallacy with what we deem "evidence" is that we set the criteria for those evidence ourselves. And if the evidence doesn't meet those criteria, the we call false/nonexistent etc, which means that we are subconsciously playing God in a way.

With science, one of the criteria would be empirical evidence, which means for God to be true, it needs to be in some way measurable, which when you consider about it, it's wrong and stupid.

A simple example would be, "does absolute truth exist?" 99.99% including christians will tell you "nothing is absolute", but in saying that, that statement must be "absolutely true". So "absolute truth" then does exist, any answer otherwise merely prove its existence.

But how do we "measure" it? For there is nothing in existence that can be more accurate than absolute truth. We simply understand that it is true.

So one of the things i used to throw to euphorics was, prove that "sacrificial love" exist. In good faith, we all know it exist, but you can never have any apparatus or metric capable of measuring it. You don't get happy endorphins when someone is donating their organs to their love ones, or sending their loved one to jail because of a heinous crime they did. In that sense then science must claim that love doesn't exist, but the very act of engaging me or trying to prove it actually already proof that you "understand" in some capacity that it exist. Otherwise you wouldn't even know what it is and we can't engage in the debate.

Thus, God's existence can be understood or explained through theology/philosophy, but not being able to provide empirical evidence for it is simply our own fallacy for deciding who and what God should be.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

But was he always secretly like this?

Found this interesting 3 1/2 hour long video that answers this question.

And yes, he's mostly has always been like this.

 

[lechatnoir]

I don't have any philosophical insight to offer, but what I DO have is this guy's gem of a signature. I was trying to search up some information for FFXIV (I know, I know) and out of nowhere, bam: euphoria. (Though I guess GameFAQs is playing this on easy mode.)

 

[Friedrich4231]

Drunk ramblings of a euphoric nigger.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=i1qyvoC9lkA

Is their any worse combination?

People have been wrestling with this forever dude, it's not just those damn SJWs in current year

There have been interesting arguments in both directions. Harder is the Problem of the Problem of Evil, which is basically why would a omniscient benevolent God create this universe knowing suffering would exist within it. This one's trickier.

Probably because God gave us free will instead of dooming us to a dull existence as subserviant automatons. I find this comforting, but I guess your average Euphoric hates this idea, as they are universally miserable people.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

Probably because God gave us free will instead of dooming us to a dull existence as subserviant automatons. I find this comforting, but I guess your average Euphoric hates this idea, as they are universally miserable people.

Nonexistence would be preferable from the standpoint of negative utilitarianism.

This is why it's difficult to argue with atheists. They are coming from wildly different assumptions.

 

[Roger Dennis]

Funny how the New Atheist movement will accuse Christians of spouting nonsense, yet they promote pseudoscience (transgenderism and abortion are good) and pseudohistory (Christianity caused the Dark Ages, Hitler was a Christian and the Holocaust was motivated by Christianity, nobody ever killed in the name of atheism, the Inquisition killed millions, Christians massacred black cats, Jesus never existed, Christmas and Easter are pagan, etc.) garbage lmao.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Funny how the New Atheist movement will accuse Christians of spouting nonsense, yet they promote pseudoscience (transgenderism and abortion are good) and pseudohistory (Christianity caused the Dark Ages, Hitler was a Christian and the Holocaust was motivated by Christianity, nobody ever killed in the name of atheism, the Inquisition killed millions, Christians massacred black cats, Jesus never existed, Christmas and Easter are pagan, etc.) garbage lmao.

People are hypocrites, midwits, dickheads, and morons no matter what faith or creed they claim to be part of.

Also, it's funny how fire is hot, water is wet, grass is green, the sky is blue, Jon Lovitz is a Jew, Francisco Franco is still dead, and Liberace was very gay.

I'm Mike Wallace, I'm Morley Safer, and I'm Ed Bradley. All this and Andy Rooney tonight on 60 Minutes!

 

[Weeby Catto]

Funny how the New Atheist movement will accuse Christians of spouting nonsense, yet they promote pseudoscience (transgenderism and abortion are good) and pseudohistory (Christianity caused the Dark Ages, Hitler was a Christian and the Holocaust was motivated by Christianity, nobody ever killed in the name of atheism, the Inquisition killed millions, Christians massacred black cats, Jesus never existed, Christmas and Easter are pagan, etc.) garbage lmao.

And if there's no God and no absolute moral standard, then based on what are they accusing others of evil?

Based on themselves? What a bloody hypocrite. Killing a kid might as well be merciful as you are sparing them the suffering of this world. The rapist of 100, Hitler, and pope are going to the same grave, and the rapist have more fun in the world. Anything can be justified as "Might makes right", this means the stoning of gays and trans by muslims is also justified.

Atheist has a very stunted logic because their is centered around them being the absolute being of truth... and that is playing god.

 

[Roger Dennis]

I apologize if I came across as autistic and political sperging in my previous post. I didn’t intend that. I suppose I’ve just been a bit annoyed at anti-theists lately and wanted to get it off my chest. Again, sorry about that.

 

[Friedrich4231]

And if there's no God and no absolute moral standard, then based on what are they accusing others of evil?

Based on themselves? What a bloody hypocrite. Killing a kid might as well be merciful as you are sparing them the suffering of this world. The rapist of 100, Hitler, and pope are going to the same grave, and the rapist have more fun in the world. Anything can be justified as "Might makes right", this means the stoning of gays and trans by muslims is also justified.

Atheist has a very stunted logic because their is centered around them being the absolute being of truth... and that is playing god.

Well due to my infallible moral standard that I just pulled out of my ass I think that putting down every Euphoric is a righteous act of mercy. No being should allowed to remain so pseudointellectual, cringey, and gay. I am doing the world a service by removing their insufferable presence. Without objective morality, how can they object to my beliefs? And honestly their frail morality crumbles anytime you see them talk about something they even slightly dislike, which is anything right of Stalin. Oh the police hurt a poor little niggerino? Kill the police! Oh that person doesn't want a vaccine? I hope they lose their job and die of Covid! And most obviously their seething unending hatred of Christians who do next to nothing to intrude into their pathetic lives. Atheists are unable to show love or compassion towards people who think differently than them.

 

[Adamska]

Morality and ethics are not reliant on religion to exist. It also doesn't require divinity for a society to notice working together benefits the whole and that a person who harms the group for themselves should be dealt with IMO.

Don't get me wrong, they blend together due to being aspects of culture and philosophy that mingle a lot, but I do think you can have objective standards of morality that most people can agree with.

But that's toilet thinking for Deep Thunks, and we're looking at insecure low-wits trying to feel better about themselves and their miserable lives by making their entire life a single aspect of their being.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

Morality and ethics are not reliant on religion to exist.

Distinguishing between things that define morality is just aesthetic as far as I'm concerned. Call it religion, philosophy, creed or ideology, in reality it's the same thing if it makes objective claims about morality.

 

[Syikeblade]

Morality and ethics are not reliant on religion to exist. It also doesn't require divinity for a society to notice working together benefits the whole and that a person who harms the group for themselves should be dealt with IMO.

Don't get me wrong, they blend together due to being aspects of culture and philosophy that mingle a lot, but I do think you can have objective standards of morality that most people can agree with.

But that's toilet thinking for Deep Thunks, and we're looking at insecure low-wits trying to feel better about themselves and their miserable lives by making their entire life a single aspect of their being

You can, but what if the majority of people turn away from what they said was objectively moral to the opposite or just does away with it all together?
If humans are truly just some advanced talking animal then why would some rich prick care about morality if he can ruins your life just for fun and get away with it?

 

[Adamska]

You can, but what if the majority of people turn away from what they said was objectively moral to the opposite or just does away with it all together?
If humans are truly just some advanced talking animal then why would some rich prick care about morality if he can ruins your life just for fun and get away with it?

How does religion stop this exact same situation?

There has been demonstrable changes in what is seen as moral in religious communities throughout history, seen with both liberalization and revival movements repeatedly, which has both criminalized and decriminalized behavior over the years. As for religion controlling the rich or sociopathic? The Charismatic movement, the rich Gulf Arabs, and Medieval Catholic church show that influence and wealth is not stopped by it either.

But again, this is a thread to mock fedora tippers who act like douchebags in public.

 

[Weeby Catto]

I think you conflate the religion made by men with the laws created by God.

How does religion(men) stop it? No they don't.
But God gave a simple law, thou shall not kill, and if men did, then society will crumble by itself. The acts of divinity does not need to be in our face for it to exist.

Not committing a multitude of sins is in of itself following religion(god). Compassion and empathy is not an evolutionary trait nor survival instinct.

In fact if we go by the bible, Jesus himself codemn the Pharisees..... who were actually under the same "religion", but perverse it to control others. "Religion" as defined in the bible is relationship with God, as you understand him more, good fruitful acts will be the natural outcome, and not some rituals that you are meant to follow rigorously.

If we judge the grace/teachings of God by the acts of men, nothing will ever seem right, and we won't be much different than the euphorics.

 

[Adamska]

I'm not conflating anything. It's demonstrable you can create philosophies that guide completely functional cultures with a fairly similar basic understanding of right and wrong without any form of divinity. Buddhists and Confucians both pulled this off back in the day.

Social creatures as a whole tend to need to have some form of dynamic to ensure groups are functional and stable since they survive by the troop, the pack. Humans since we have brains that jumped the gap from sentient to sapient and being the most developed of that lot have this amazing ability to then explain and think about these details and codify them into ways that deal with our peers ever growing ability to also think through their own maladaptive behaviors. It also sometimes gets mixed in with their explanations about the great mysteries of death and creation.

But again, this is a thread to mock fedora tippers who need to feel smart, not be smug yourself so here's some cringe I trawled to get this thread back on track:

Spoiler: Cringe

Ignore that Mao, Stalin, and the An Lushan rebellion have a far higher death score than the Abrahamics.

Rather than live and let live, leave your SOs because they do not cuck down their beliefs for you.

Trying to bleat accomplishments they aren't able to have themselves.

Sky man dumb, because me am draw line straight.

 

[Weeby Catto]

Mega cringe, making up their own facts without any credible evidence.

Even more mega cringe, listing celebs/influencers as credibility for your intelligence..... just shows how stupid their logic is.

Einstein is agnostic, Newton is Christian, Martin Luther King is Christian, the one who started to free slavery was also one. Who among those on the list dare to say they are smarter or accomplished more?

 

[Newman's Lovechild]

43% of atheists have degrees. I wonder how many of those are in sociology, gender studies and comic books?

 

[Adamska]

43% of atheists have degrees. I wonder how many of those are in sociology, gender studies and comic books?

It's also funny to note they only specify a degree, meaning it can range from an Associate's to a full doctorate. It's always fun to see fudged statistics, especially since Euphorics love to shit on creationists for doing the same thing with their "doctors".

Also tolerant usually ignores the vitriolic ass rage a lot of them have towards dissenting political views.