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
Euphoric athiests always confuse me with their gotchas. They don' really understand that being a Prophet or chosen by God is a fucking big job and most of the Prophets within the Bible get frustrated with it. The OT is a history of the Jewish People and it generally doesn't paint them as some ubermensch race like a lot of modern Jews think of themselves. They fuck up and many times persecute their own prophets because times are good and why do you want some guy around saying that God doesn't want you to murder your own people and take their wives? Who gives a shit that even David fucked up and admitted it's a dick move?

There's that old saying that they love to parrot that goes something like, "Athiests know the Bible/Torah/Korran better than most Christians/Jews/Muslims". It always irks me because it's always pulling a verse out of context. The entire New Testament is the Jewish people being lead by corrupt religious authorities who hide behind an overly complex internal system of rules while being backed by the Roman Empire. A lot of the allegories Jesus speaks in are him trying to avoid being called a heretic or a rebel.
Abrahamic Religion has a very grounded message and the narratives throughout the OT and NT are not some overly philosophical stuff for modern people, we've had centuries where the harder philosophical ideas are effectively no longer alien and part of popular conscience.

How the fuck do athiest niggers misunderstand Paul/ Saul? It's a redemption story.
Better yet, they always act like their objections are the most original in the world. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. Things were worse then than they are now, yet they clamor on about the problem of evil as though people didn't think about such things 2000 years ago. If Christianity is so utterly unconvincing nowadays, why was it so alluring back then? We as a species haven't changed much. Surely if the ideas presented by religion are so patently ridiculous, we wouldn't even see religion in the first place, since nobody would be stupid enough to fall for such an obvious trick.
 
Better yet, they always act like their objections are the most original in the world. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. Things were worse then than they are now, yet they clamor on about the problem of evil as though people didn't think about such things 2000 years ago. If Christianity is so utterly unconvincing nowadays, why was it so alluring back then? We as a species haven't changed much. Surely if the ideas presented by religion are so patently ridiculous, we wouldn't even see religion in the first place, since nobody would be stupid enough to fall for such an obvious trick.
The Problem of Evil is a recurring one because people want to try to imagine an existence where we can't transgress against one another. You cannot sin, yet you have free will. The problem is that Sin as defined by Christians and Jews is a varied idea. The basic comes to the idea of a moral failing, the greater idea is knowing better and still acting wrongly. That's actually the biggest recurring theme in the Bible is knowing better and still doing bad shit regardless. There is unknowingly sinning and correcting your behavior, too.

The existence that would be sounds like a step-up from an animal, but below a human. You'd basically be a dog, aware enough to observe the world, but not enough to really see it. I don't really think we're ever supposed to get all the answers in this life. You try and fail to live a moral life. Some people suffer more, and some people suffer less. Some people are better for it and others aren't. I know people who've had siblings killed in front of them in an accident and intentionally and they've both made peace with it and God. I know people who've lost a kid due to a hot car and the two separated with split views on God after that.
I have my issues with people who act high and might about all religion. I'm anti-clerical and the Institutions that have built themselves around religion often are fucking cunts, but I view anti-theists and atheists as unknowing Samsons. They want to cut out a central pillar of civilization and replace it with something that can't bear the load.

The big problem I also have is acting like the Bible isn't a story about flawed people. Almost every Prophet, Judge, and King has a moral failing in the OT. Jesus, depending on the sect of Christianity, is perfect. The leaders of the Church aren't perfect. Peter is a fucking coward who denies Christ and Paul was a murderer. Most of the Apostles hide when Jesus faces execution and only John comes out to hide behind Mary's skirt while Christ is tormented.
St. Stephan outlines the best criticism of the Jewish people before he's stoned.

I go on about Christianity, but it effectively has the most worthwhile content to read about it's ethics and values. Modern Judaism is split between awful Reform, secular master race bs, Orthodox stuff that you need to be a 75th Degree Jewish Mason to see, or stuff that mixes Angloid fanfiction into itself for some garbage.
Islam is not worth looking into because it basically got rewritten multiple times and gets OT stuff wrong.
Non-Abrahamic stuff that interests me is Taoism and old Eastern Euro-Central Asian stuff.
Hinduism feels like a Shonen anime mixed with justification for the caste system.
 
I have my issues with people who act high and might about all religion. I'm anti-clerical and the Institutions that have built themselves around religion often are fucking cunts, but I view anti-theists and atheists as unknowing Samsons. They want to cut out a central pillar of civilization and replace it with something that can't bear the load.
How much power should the pillar have over people's everyday lives, especially the inevitable unbeliever?
 
Better yet, they always act like their objections are the most original in the world. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. Things were worse then than they are now, yet they clamor on about the problem of evil as though people didn't think about such things 2000 years ago. If Christianity is so utterly unconvincing nowadays, why was it so alluring back then? We as a species haven't changed much. Surely if the ideas presented by religion are so patently ridiculous, we wouldn't even see religion in the first place, since nobody would be stupid enough to fall for such an obvious trick.
Christianity and religion as a whole existed as a sort of precursor to science (not to say that the two can't coexist). People saw a massive glowing ball in the sky and wanted an explanation, or they were getting sick and wanted an explanation. Atheism didn't exist and wasn't very alluring back then because if you didn't believe in god, you also basically say that you don't believe that these things can't be explained. Now, with modern science allowing us to understand stuff like the sun and disease, atheists can choose to believe exclusively in science and smugly use it to dismiss the stories in scripture.
 
Christianity and religion as a whole existed as a sort of precursor to science (not to say that the two can't coexist). People saw a massive glowing ball in the sky and wanted an explanation, or they were getting sick and wanted an explanation.
But that still doesn't make any sense. Surely humans, being the same species as our enlightened 21st century selves, would have accepted that that's just the way the world works. I can understand ancestor worship but coming up with a way to explain something as inevitable as the sun rising seems silly.
 
But that still doesn't make any sense. Surely humans, being the same species as our enlightened 21st century selves, would have accepted that that's just the way the world works. I can understand ancestor worship but coming up with a way to explain something as inevitable as the sun rising seems silly.
Humans are curious creatures. I don't think a lot of major discoveries would've happened if our ancestors just shrugged and were like "I guess that's just how it is." If they didn't have the tools to find out the actual reason, they'd have to get creative.
 
So, question time;
If hell does exist and if it’s like Dante’s version with nine levels consisting of Limbo, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Heresy, Violence, Fraud & Treachery, which level do you think most of these euphorics would go to?

Well, Dante figured that Blasphemers went in the 7th circle, so probably there.

But that still doesn't make any sense. Surely humans, being the same species as our enlightened 21st century selves, would have accepted that that's just the way the world works. I can understand ancestor worship but coming up with a way to explain something as inevitable as the sun rising seems silly.

Same species, but even today we want to know "why" and "how" so it's not surprising that our ancestors would come up with their own attempts to answer those questions.
Religion as a whole has been moving away from deities being the direct causes of natural forces for a few thousand years.
 
Screenshot_20221111_200150_Twitter.jpg
Stay mad.
 
View attachment 3882810
Religion means you like dictatorship.
They're both wrong. Atheism trends left, simply because American leftism empowers the state and opposes socially conservative social structures. In so many points, most leftist atheists have replaced God with the Party/State and thus seek to empower it against those that oppose it. As for dictatorships, just because you nominally have "democratic" elections doesn't mean that you're a free society when said "democracy" is blatantly fraudulent and focused on a few population centers.
 
Religion means you like dictatorship.
Abrahamic faiths are if you want to get really technical about it. After all, refusing to acknowledge and worship Jehova/Allah gets you cast into never ending torture.
 
Meh, I'm just here because I want to gawk at the Reddit-tier atheists who seem to think that their professed lack of belief make them the next Einstein or the ones who wound up being a lot like the fundies they originally railed against.

Abrahamic faiths are if you want to get really technical about it. After all, refusing to acknowledge and worship Jehova/Allah gets you cast into never ending torture.

It depends on the sect in question. Traditionalist Protestants? Yes.

Catholics believe in Hell but there's also Purgatory which is far less severe and offers a chance for redemption. IIRC, most people just wind up in Purgatory as opposed to Hell though I could be wrong.

There are other Christian sects that don't believe in Hell, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the various Armstrong churches. They generally believe that when you die, you are just dead until the Second Coming happens, when the dead are to be resurrected.

IIRC, Mormons believe Hell is merely eternal separation from God as opposed to the never-ending torture that trad Protestants believe in.
 
Last edited:
Catholics believe in Hell but there's also Purgatory which is far less severe and offers a chance for redemption. IIRC, most people just wind up in Purgatory as opposed to Hell though I could be wrong.

Purgatory's just the "waiting room" before Heaven. All souls in Purgatory get redeemed.
 
Does this idiot elaborate on that? He just counters his own argument by saying religious people can be libertarian, and doesn't bother explaining.
Darkmatter is not known for being particularly intelligent or consistent. Most of his argumentation is rather basic and flimsy stuff based on standard fedora rhetoric, and we should never expect much more from him, since he's been like this since the frontier days of YouTube.
 
Reject Darkmatter.

Embrace TheraminTrees.
 

I've honestly become numb to Kyle's videos on religion/ atheism. He just use the same arguments and talking points over and over and over again.
What frustrates me are the comments. Nonstop euphoric Redditor circlejerking. Society is being shattered and fuckers like this are the ones doing the breaking.
 
Back
Top Bottom