Euphoric atheists

[Candlelight Desolation]

Nonstampcollector uploaded his video he was bragging about:

In a nutshell, not addressing the arguments of Christians calling him out on his game show video, moreso trying to claim that there are Bible translation goofs/contradictions because first century people were supposedly all writing in Greek from Aramaic and/or semi-literate, just the implication of thinking in the vein of standard "gotcha" new atheist arguments from 2013 everyone has heard a million times. Ends the video with talking about how he might return to making videos and also putting down Christians/scripture again, albeit in a more calm tone than most of his body of work.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

 

[Jacques1194]

I want to say an argument like this was shared many pages before this, but this has always been a problem I have with atheism. If our brains are nothing but "chemical reactions" and there is no "free will" why should I trust anything you say? This argument in general is self defeating because you're basically admitting that you yourself are an NPC driven by a chemical reaction in your brain.

 

[Megaton Punch]

They of course, conveniently ignored the theory of multiple attestation, where believers and "non-believers" of the time gave accounts on this person called Jesus.
Believers call him messiah/prophet, unbelievers called him a con man/wizard, but there's no denying that this person exist.
Jesus isn't real for them because there isn't a photo of him on Instagram lol, yet they could believe some ancient Pharaoh was real? Peter was real 1st pope, Paul and friends were real, and there are even accounts on how they died.
So how is it so many real people, including the church back then and Pharisees etc experience a revolution based on this single unreal person?

2025, people's stupidity is unreal.

I once pointed out on Reddit that every historical figure without an extant corpse (which is nearly all of them) could have been a hoax if "a lot of people who were alive at the time said this person existed" isn't sufficient evidence. There's exactly as much evidence of Jesus as of Socrates or Genghis Khan or Joan of Arc, yet nobody is skeptical that any of the latter existed.

I didn't expect a rational response to this, nor did I receive one.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

I once pointed out on Reddit that every historical figure without an extant corpse (which is nearly all of them) could have been a hoax if "a lot of people who were alive at the time said this person existed" isn't sufficient evidence. There's exactly as much evidence of Jesus as of Socrates or Genghis Khan or Joan of Arc, yet nobody is skeptical that any of the latter existed.

I didn't expect a rational response to this, nor did I receive one.

Care to share any of the responses? I wonder how bad it got with them.

 

[Megaton Punch]

Care to share any of the responses? I wonder how bad it got with them.

This was on one of the "debate someone (for real (pinky swear (this time it's legitimate (not like the other 5000 debate subs that are just echo chambers))))" subs so people were required to stay civil, which just meant their seething stayed below the surface.

That account is long dead, but from what I recall it was just a bunch of sophistry and moving of goalposts. My claim was meaningless because nobody would ever lie like that (except about Jesus)/even if they did lie it's not as harmful so it doesn't count/actually hearsay is valid as long as I agree with it, and so forth.

There were also lots of people missing the point, saying "just because Jesus may have been real doesn't mean he was magic", which was never an argument I gave. In fact, I can't name a single time I tried to have a legitimate conversation about a topic Reddit didn't like and not have 90% of the responses just be talking past me, deboonking arguments I never made. It really felt like I was activating automated responses that detected keywords in my post.

Even subs that are ostensibly about intellectual debate are actually just places to jerk each other off and misrepresent the positions of people they don't like in order to make themselves feel smart. It's just not quite as obvious

To Reddit's credit, however, outside of subs built around "debating" religion, it's quite rare to see outright Jesus denial. They'll always preface it with "I'm not a Christian but" boilerplate, but pretty much everyone who's got one molecule of intellectual honesty left agrees with my point.

 

[AnOminous]

I didn't expect a rational response to this, nor did I receive one.

To be fair, some of the most notable citations are to questionable sources, but if you add them all up, the idea he was invented centuries later is absolutely ridiculous Moon landing hoax level retardation. It is a virtual certainty that such a person existed, whatever you may believe about the divinity of Christ.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

It really felt like I was activating automated responses that detected keywords in my post.

Sounds like a bunch of NPCs. Everything else you described sounds exactly like dealing with people who act like eternal teenagers, though that's commonplace for a new atheist.

 

[H3H3 Podcast Higlights]

Found a guy who sperg out on Christians

https://x.com/Luigimario83486

 

[Slap47]

There's exactly as much evidence of Jesus as of Socrates or Genghis Khan or Joan of Arc, yet nobody is skeptical that any of the latter existed.

Let's be honest, there is very little evidence of Jesus from contemporary sources. Best one is years later from a Roman historian talking about an unspecified troublemaker in the Levant.

But... the claim is not actually that crazy. It's a low burden of proof. A guy was crucified in the middle East claiming to be the Jewish/universal messiah. You don't need that much evidence to fairly conclude he existed. Most people to exist have very little evidence of their existence.

In the larger debate it is also meaningless. Atheism is correct even if Jesus was real in the same way that Christians and Atheists can agree that Muhammad was real but not actually talking to God.

 

[Chadikus Maximus]

The YouTube algorithm recommend me an old JonTron Video and while reading the comments I came across a euphoric beast of a reply chain

It all starts innocently enough withe a comment about the origins of skate boarding, unfortunately one of the replies used the word God in in there sentence

This summoned EdgieAlias who in his euphoria began telling any and every one that God in not real

and then he keeps going and going and going, his last reply in the chain was 2 years ago so that means he speed a good 3 years fighting and obsessively repelling to any one in the thread that would give him even a crumb of attention

I do hope some of the replies got deleted at some point other wise this guy is just schizo replying to himself

Spoiler: Full Chain

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Now THAT is some hardcore euphorics.

 

[Slap47]

India's atheism subreddit is pro-Christianity.

Spoiler: Full Chain

This is like condensing all of 2010-2020 euphoric atheism into a shot glass and drinking it.

 

[Rusty Hinges]

India's atheism subreddit is pro-Christianity.

This is fascinating because it shows how atheist movements really only care about dogging on whatever religion they grew up with. That's why Western atheist movements only go after Christianity and never Islam or Sikhism. It's not about believing that there is no god, so much as it is about airing grievances regarding whatever belief system your parents have.

 

[MilkyMomma]

This has likely been mentioned, but one character I can't stand who attempts to place himself on the influential atheist podium is Ricky Gervais. He simply regurgitates the points of those far more knowledgeable than himself (Richard Dawkins for example) and attempts to put his own self-dick-sucking spin on it.

Be an atheist in belief, don't ingrain it into your personality when your career is being a shitty writer and at best a shoddy comedian.

Absolutely can't stand him.

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

Why settle for fat British Diet George Carlin when comedians like Norm existed?

He was a hundred times funnier saying absolutely nothing than an entire speech of Gervais's pontificating, on top of being a generally very uncondescending guy by default which is far more endearing.

You can "tell it how it is" and "epically own the establishment" without being a abrasive dickhead.

 

[AnOminous]

That's why Western atheist movements only go after Christianity and never Islam or Sikhism.

I've never understood the "atheism as a movement" concept. So you're going to make some absolute proclamation about the existence or nonexistence of something you can't prove, and you're going to go around preaching trying to convert people to your way of thinking.

That's the most insufferable part of religion in the first place. At least the religionists legitimately believe they're saving souls when they do shit like that and helping people not go to Hell for all eternity. So you don't believe in God. So what? Are you so insecure in that that you're made uncomfortable by the fact that other people do?

 

[Aki'sTopGuy]

I want to say an argument like this was shared many pages before this, but this has always been a problem I have with atheism. If our brains are nothing but "chemical reactions" and there is no "free will" why should I trust anything you say? This argument in general is self defeating because you're basically admitting that you yourself are an NPC driven by a chemical reaction in your brain.

Wow, this guys like flippin ratatouille or something! The chemicals man, the chemicals in my brain! I don't have any self control my chemical reaction nervous system made my ego out of control and belittle you on reddit man. There's chemicals in my brainnnn man!

 

[Slap47]

I've never understood the "atheism as a movement" concept. So you're going to make some absolute proclamation about the existence or nonexistence of something you can't prove, and you're going to go around preaching trying to convert people to your way of thinking.

That's the most insufferable part of religion in the first place. At least the religionists legitimately believe they're saving souls when they do shit like that and helping people not go to Hell for all eternity. So you don't believe in God. So what? Are you so insecure in that that you're made uncomfortable by the fact that other people do?

The people who argue that Atheism is a movement want to use it as a vessel for progressive politics. Some just want it to be a force for secularism, but you can see some of their ambitions in stuff like Atheism+. It is a somewhat logically sound strategy. Many of the reasons for being conservative are religious, and most atheists are leftists or progressive so logically you create more supporters of your politics by spreading Atheism. Of course, there is also secular reasons for conservatism and religious reasons for progressivism so its abit naive.

The very most extreme of this is communism. In the Soviet Union they created a "League of militant atheists" that was tasked with annihilating religion so that communism could be stronger. In the Spanish Republic atheist militias viewed the church as a source of conservative politics and murdered nuns.

 

[MilkyMomma]

The people who argue that Atheism is a movement want to use it as a vessel for progressive politics. Some just want it to be a force for secularism, but you can see some of their ambitions in stuff like Atheism+. It is a somewhat logically sound strategy. Many of the reasons for being conservative are religious, and most atheists are leftists or progressive so logically you create more supporters of your politics by spreading Atheism. Of course, there is also secular reasons for conservatism and religious reasons for progressivism so its abit naive.

Very good point for both sides. In the present day, I can certainly see how Christianity, for example, is being used to herd otherwise centrist people toward conservatism in the US - I just can't think of a large body who are utilising atheism in that way.

Some leftist atheists preach freedom of religion whilst dogging on Catholicism or Christianity, yet fervently protect Islam. At least be consistent, all religious texts are far from perfect - and if they were truly followed to the letter, each and every single one of them would be wholly incompatible with today's society.