Infected Euphoric atheists

[AnOminous]

View attachment 1327643

Typical euphorics, not grasping that black Christianity is not about slavery but about liberation.

Slavery was just a thing of the time in the Bible.

It wasn't a focus at all, it was just the culture back then.

"Let my people go." Moses

Slavery was actually pretty important in the Old Testament.

 

[The Pink Panther]

"Let my people go." Moses

Slavery was actually pretty important in the Old Testament.

well...shit

Guess I gotta go back to Sunday School.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Slavery was just a thing of the time in the Bible.

A lot of religions are either neutral or have specifications for how to handle slavery because slavery and indentured servitude as things humans do are older than any extant religion.

"Let my people go." Moses

Slavery was actually pretty important in the Old Testament.

Yes, and many biblical characters, particularly wealthy patriarchs, had slaves. Moses wanted his people freed, he wasn't trying to abolish slavery.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

A lot of religions are either neutral or have specifications for how to handle slavery because slavery and indentured servitude as things humans do are older than any extant religion.


Yes, and many biblical characters, particularly wealthy patriarchs, had slaves. Moses wanted his people freed, he wasn't trying to abolish slavery.

Here's a shocker: religion dealt with slavery because slavery is probably a lot older than religion... at least, organized religion. The idea that humanity can exist without any form of slavery is a very, very new idea.

 

[AnOminous]

A lot of religions are either neutral or have specifications for how to handle slavery because slavery and indentured servitude as things humans do are older than any extant religion.


Yes, and many biblical characters, particularly wealthy patriarchs, had slaves. Moses wanted his people freed, he wasn't trying to abolish slavery.

Christians and others inspired by the Bible do not view it this way and in fact view things like slavery as ungodly. Christ made "my people" all people, not just Jews.

 

[Positron]

Also as per Buddhism being selfish, did it ever cross his mind that he was doing it wrong? Or maybe he’s just a selfish piece of shit.

I've never heard "Buddhism is selfish" before, but I suspect this is a side effect of Buddhism being severed from its cultural roots and being repackaged by the west as an "exotic" new-agey, self-improvement program. Buddhists in the east takes Buddhism's world view seriously -- all beings share a common fate; what you do to another being, be they humans, animals, or even inanimate objects, will affect yourself in due course. People who take this view seriously will practice an enlightened form of worldly concern, to be keenly aware what the consequence of their actions will be. To reach that stage they must seek to understand other people, and that is not what a "selfish" person can afford to do.

Buddhist folklore is full of stories of true altruism (such as Prince Sattva sacrificing himself so that a tiger and her cubs can feed). While several Bodhisattvas having achieved Nirvana themselves and hence no longer have to endure the throes of reincarnation, nevertheless consent to be reborn in order to save people. The most celebrated example is Guanyin, the Chinese form of
Avalokiteśvara. In Chinese language, "having the heart of a Bodhisattva" is the highest praise you can give for a merciful person. I'm not sure to what extent such knowledge is presented in Western popular account of Buddhism.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Slavery was just a thing of the time in the Bible.

It wasn't a focus at all, it was just the culture back then.

True.

Slavery was pretty much endemic to all societies and cultures before the one-two punch of the Enlightenment and more importantly, the technological advances of the industrial revolution.

Liberalism and universal basic human rights didn't become a thing until Enlightenment-era philosophy caught on in the West, and it wasn't able to be feasibly implemented on a full scale until the industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.

As @GethN7 pointed out, the slavery mentioned in The Bible was different from the chattel slavery of the plantations, and the New Testament understood slavery in the context of the Greek and Roman concepts of slavery, which was more in line with indentured servitude as opposed to multi-generational chattel slavery.

The chattel slavery of the colonial era was incidentally an invention of the Sub-Saharan African kingdoms and city-states that was merely introduced to the Portuguese and Spaniards, who brought it to the New World once enough of the natives had died en masse from disease and could no longer be an effective labor force

 

[AnOminous]

I've never heard "Buddhism is selfish" before, but I suspect this is a side effect of Buddhism being severed from its cultural roots and being repackaged by the west as an "exotic" new-agey, self-improvement program.

Western "Buddhists" always remind me of idiot Otto in A Fish Called Wanda. When she was explaining to him why he was stupid, one of the things she told him was "the central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.'" You get lots of these clowns who think Buddhism means get stoned and like, expand your mind, man.

 

[NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE]

https://incels.co/threads/if-you-de...l-you-are-extremely-low-iq.42183/#post-742522 (https://archive.md/Kblsu)

found this while searching for porn on one of my favorite forums that I frequently post on every day

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

Which is only kinda right because slavery was permitted and even sanctioned to a degree in both Old and New Testament,

However, their version of slavery was more of a form of indentured servitude with caveats. For example, it would be possible for the slave to be liberated unless they chose to remain for life. They also were entitled to some measure of dignity and compassion by law.

For the most part, slavery was not a main focus of Christian or Biblical belief and practice. While it had strictures for having slaves, it had a lot of encouragement for liberating them and treating them like human beings, and those slaves that were fellow believers under the Old Testament were to be given a chance at liberation, and the only major incident of slavery in the New was a Roman slave, who, under law, could eventually purchase their freedom or be granted it legally, and Roman slavery itself was eventually ended on a national level historically anyway.

Yeah you couldn't just head down to the unemployment office for the government's gibs in 1000 BC (though Israel did have provisions for those who couldn't work, interestingly).

There's an entire book in the New Testament (Philemon) where Paul tells a slave owner that his slave is his brother, and to treat him as such.

 

[GethN7]

https://incels.co/threads/if-you-de...l-you-are-extremely-low-iq.42183/#post-742522 (https://archive.md/Kblsu)View attachment 1343150
found this while searching for porn on one of my favorite forums that I frequently post on every day

Okay, I don't get it.

If God is false and if atheism is BS, what's left?

Agnosticism? If that's the case, it's kinda the worst of both worlds, because either could be valid but you aren't sure which, and if you reject God and the absence thereof as valid, even agnosticism is off the table.

 

[Shaka Brah]

https://incels.co/threads/if-you-de...l-you-are-extremely-low-iq.42183/#post-742522 (https://archive.md/Kblsu)View attachment 1343150
found this while searching for porn on one of my favorite forums that I frequently post on every day

Most of those incels are pretty based lol. The atheists are getting upset that people bring up Pascal's Wager or showing how atheism is linked to social degeneracy because it means crushing sources of patriarchal authority.

 

[Adamska]

Most of those incels are pretty based lol. The atheists are getting upset that people bring up Pascal's Wager or showing how atheism is linked to social degeneracy because it means crushing sources of patriarchal authority.

Eh, Pascal's Wager is just a common scare tactic tbh and is an obnoxious thing in its own right.

Still doesn't give them carte blanche to pretend they're any smarter or more "rational" though given the euphoric's tendency to believe that all believers are dishonest idiots who want to murder for god or whatever bullshit strawman lies in their head.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Eh, Pascal's Wager is just a common scare tactic tbh and is an obnoxious thing in its own right.

Still doesn't give them carte blanche to pretend they're any smarter or more "rational" though given the euphoric's tendency to believe that all believers are dishonest idiots who want to murder for god or whatever bullshit strawman lies in their head.

Even just knowing what it is and the rationale behind which Atheist "debunkings" of it are wrong puts them a step above most people in terms of apologetic arguments. It's surprising to see, but quite welcome in my view. Means they're reading.

 

[c-no]

I've never heard "Buddhism is selfish" before, but I suspect this is a side effect of Buddhism being severed from its cultural roots and being repackaged by the west as an "exotic" new-agey, self-improvement program. Buddhists in the east takes Buddhism's world view seriously -- all beings share a common fate; what you do to another being, be they humans, animals, or even inanimate objects, will affect yourself in due course. People who take this view seriously will practice an enlightened form of worldly concern, to be keenly aware what the consequence of their actions will be. To reach that stage they must seek to understand other people, and that is not what a "selfish" person can afford to do.

Buddhist folklore is full of stories of true altruism (such as Prince Sattva sacrificing himself so that a tiger and her cubs can feed). While several Bodhisattvas having achieved Nirvana themselves and hence no longer have to endure the throes of reincarnation, nevertheless consent to be reborn in order to save people. The most celebrated example is Guanyin, the Chinese form of
Avalokiteśvara. In Chinese language, "having the heart of a Bodhisattva" is the highest praise you can give for a merciful person. I'm not sure to what extent such knowledge is presented in Western popular account of Buddhism.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "selfish" idea was born from the West seeing it as a "exotic" new-age, self-improvement program. While it's been a good while since I learned about Buddhism, you pretty much nailed the idea of it. Everyone is born into a cycle and we're all connected and affected by the actions of our own and others. And they way one lives does show what the consequences will be. Of course, any idea of what it's about isn't gonna be known to anyone unless they bothered to actually learn about Buddhism beyond just some new-age hippy style interpretation being given.

True.

Slavery was pretty much endemic to all societies and cultures before the one-two punch of the Enlightenment and more importantly, the technological advances of the industrial revolution.

Liberalism and universal basic human rights didn't become a thing until Enlightenment-era philosophy caught on in the West, and it wasn't able to be feasibly implemented on a full scale until the industrial revolution made slavery obsolete.

As @GethN7 pointed out, the slavery mentioned in The Bible was different from the chattel slavery of the plantations, and the New Testament understood slavery in the context of the Greek and Roman concepts of slavery, which was more in line with indentured servitude as opposed to multi-generational chattel slavery.

The chattel slavery of the colonial era was incidentally an invention of the Sub-Saharan African kingdoms and city-states that was merely introduced to the Portuguese and Spaniards, who brought it to the New World once enough of the natives had died en masse from disease and could no longer be an effective labor force

Yeh, slavery was endemic to all societies and cultures before any of them even met some European colonial power. And society has its own form of slavery, whether it was from warfare or in paying back some sort of debt. Even though a Euphoric could try to use slavery in the Bible to condemn religion in how it "screwed up the modern age and prevented us from flying to the moon," it is reductive to just say religion is why America had the slave trade and not realizing European powers wanted to get the cheapest labor possible.

 

[AnOminous]

Eh, Pascal's Wager is just a common scare tactic tbh and is an obnoxious thing in its own right.

Pascal's Wager is dumb because it assumes the only options are Christianity or nothing, as well as that you will go to Hell or not go to Hell based on one exact thing. Suppose there's an entirely different God but for some reason, this God doesn't care if you don't believe, or will actually send you to Hell for believing in the wrong God (and this God is not any of the ones in major religions). In that case, by taking Pascal's Wager you'd end up going to Hell when you'd have just been fine to be an atheist.

 

[Positron]

Most of those incels are pretty based lol. The atheists are getting upset that people bring up Pascal's Wager or showing how atheism is linked to social degeneracy because it means crushing sources of patriarchal authority.

Atheists have no reason to be troubled by Pascal's Wager. Atheists are concerned about taking down the justification of religious beliefs, but the Wager at best provides a motivation for belief, not its justification. If your bike has been stolen, you may choose to believe that the thief needs the bike more than you do, because believing this makes you feel happier. But if someone asks you, "What evidence do you have that the thief needs the bike more?", you cannot answer "Because I'm now happier."

 

[AnOminous]

Atheists have no reason to be troubled by Pascal's Wager. Atheists are concerned about taking down the justification of religious beliefs, but the Wager at best provides a motivation for belief, not its justification. If your bike has been stolen, you may choose to believe that the thief needs the bike more than you do, because believing this makes you feel happier. But if someone asks you, "What evidence do you have that the thief needs the bike more?", you cannot answer "Because I'm now happier."

Pascal's Wager is more about the gambling concept of expected value, where you gauge the value of a bet by the amount you'd expect to win or lose on average if you repeated the bet indefinitely. In general, you should always make a bet with positive expected value and not make one with negative expected value, as you will profit with the first and lose with the second. With eternal damnation or eternal bliss, the payoff or loss is infinite and, so the concept goes, even a very small chance of winning or losing an infinite amount makes it worth making the bet, especially when the "cost" of believing is so little.

The fallacies are nearly innumerable with this, among them assuming that only the truth or falsity of the Christian set of beliefs is the one that matters, and disregarding, for instance, that God might actually be offended by such a crass calculation of value, as well as the notion that you can simply choose to believe something you don't.

It also is actually incorrect about the general concept that even a bet with infinite value is always worth making. There are actually bets with mathematically calculable infinite expected value that are not worth making, cf. Bernoulli's St. Petersburg Paradox.

 

[Positron]

 

[RedneckQuadFeed]

Can't just appreciate a scientific finding. Got to bash religion while you're at it.