Euphoric atheists

[Newman's Lovechild]

Fucking hell, yes. Dawkins, JK Rowling, Sarah Silverman, Stephen Fry, and so on: these are your children. You set strawmen up in front of them and put a lighted torch in their hands. Bit late to try blowing it out when they turn it on you.

 

[dirtydeanna96]

I see this meme lately by atheist commenters online that polytheism is "only" 5k yrs old as if thats a fact and are using it basically to say Christianity is so young even compared to polytheistic religions which are also "young". I'm pretty sure they're off by at least 1k because there are written records from Mesopotamia going back that long, plus I'm pretty sure there are other older polytheist civilizations than that like the Indus River Valley.

Yeah, she might have meant 5000bc

Pre Aryan pre Vedic protoHinduism goes back 5000bc - 5500bc

I've heard other comments from fedora heads (including a former gf) that I as a Christian believe the universe is 4000 years old, when YEC belief is 6000 years old.

I guess it's just not paying close attention to the BC thing
What's a couple K here or there as long as you own the theists.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

I'm an atheist, but all too often I look around at other atheists and I'm damn near ready to start worshipping Zeus out of pure embarrassment.

I feel ya there. I don’t pretend to know all the what if’s out there and I’m not really bothered by the existence or lack thereof of divinity. However, I dislike smug cunts whether they’re religious or not. I especially hate left leaning atheists who worship progressivism. It’s so annoying when someone goes on and on about how they Fucking Love Science, then later tweeting about how there’s 1000s of genders and how transwomen have no advantage in sports.

Fucking hell, yes. Dawkins, JK Rowling, Sarah Silverman, Stephen Fry, and so on: these are your children. You set strawmen up in front of them and put a lighted torch in their hands. Bit late to try blowing it out when they turn it on you.

They get what they deserve lol. Dunking on creationists is nothing to brag about. It’s like being proud of realizing that there’s two sexes and gender identity is all a load of bs.

 

[Newman's Lovechild]

I especially hate left leaning atheists who worship progressivism. It’s so annoying when someone goes on and on about how they Fucking Love Science

That, or something like it. Not small-s science, the formal and systematic accumulation of knowledge and facts, but big-S Science: an idea that ironically takes on the guise of some nebulous entity to be worshipped, to be used as a weapon by us vs. them. Especially when you add progressivism into the mix.

 

[AnOminous]

That, or something like it. Not small-s science, the formal and systematic accumulation of knowledge and facts, but big-S Science: an idea that ironically takes on the guise of some nebulous entity to be worshipped, to be used as a weapon by us vs. them. Especially when you add progressivism into the mix.

Real science: Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation
SJW "Science": Men who declare themselves to be women instantly transform into actual women

 

[StraightShooter2]

Also never minding the fact that "science" or "Scientism" has nothing to do with atheism. (But of course most people, namely "euphoric" atheists themselves aren't literate enough on either subject to even be able to point out something so blatantly and childishly obvious).

 

[Shaka Brah]

Also never minding the fact that "science" or "Scientism" has nothing to do with atheism. (But of course most people, namely "euphoric" atheists themselves aren't literate enough on either subject to even be able to point out something so blatantly and childishly obvious).

And some of the best apologists draw on scientific evidence for belief. Atheism+ and a lot of these euphoric academic speakers really ran out of steam when William Lane Craig started hitting his stride in the 2010s and onward.

A lot of the "big brains" in that sphere turned out to be so scientifically illiterate that they were folded up in their own clothes on stage because they were used to dunking on weirdos instead of being in serious debates. They knew just enough scientific jargon to confuse Ken Ham types, but not enough to correctly speak on subjects like the cosmic microwave background or the arguments against multiverse theory as an explanation for fine tuning.

 

[Positron]

SJW "Science": Men who declare themselves to be women instantly transform into actual women

Richard Dawkins famously (notoriously?) took a piss at transubstantiation; is it any surprise he doesn't believe in bodily transition from man to woman?

The only surprise is that he doesn't deal with the elephant in the room and call transsexualism, or at least its ROGD variety, "virus of the mind".

 

[Syaoran Li]

In my humble opinion, atheism really is the epitome of arrogance and hubris.

I can understand not being religious but to boldly claim that there is definitively no higher power of any kind is just arrogant. The universe is vast.

 

[Emperor Julian]

In my humble opinion, atheism really is the epitome of arrogance and hubris.

I can understand not being religious but to boldly claim that there is definitively no higher power of any kind is just arrogant. The universe is vast.

Couldnt such an arguement be made against theists who tend to have a very human/you centric version of the universe? if the universe is anything to go by a supreme being could be so profoundly alien and lovecraftian that the presumption on any personal relationship is supreme hubris.

 

[dirtydeanna96]

Couldnt such an arguement be made against theists who tend to have a very human/you centric version of the universe? if the universe is anything to go by a supreme being could be so profoundly alien and lovecraftian that the presumption on any personal relationship is supreme hubris.

Yeah, the prophets made such arguments,
The people who communed directly with God came back changed, raving.

Isaiah 55

8“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says YHWH.
“And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

9For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways
and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Couldnt such an arguement be made against theists who tend to have a very human/you centric version of the universe? if the universe is anything to go by a supreme being could be so profoundly alien and lovecraftian that the presumption on any personal relationship is supreme hubris.

If a supreme being manifested in front of you and said "Hey, have a personal relationship with me," would it still be hubris? Is there a reason for the answer to change if they appeared in front of someone else rather than you and said "Also, this applies to your whole species"?

Is there a reason that an alien/ineffable being wouldn't deign to such a relationship that doesn't boil down to projecting human values/limitations on something vastly different every bit as much as presuming they would?

It feels like 90+% of the arguments against the existence of God that get tossed around start by presuming the nonexistence of God, or at the very least "God couldn't possibly be like that" without anything beyond the assertion itself to justify it.

 

[Shaka Brah]

It feels like 90+% of the arguments against the existence of God that get tossed around start by presuming the nonexistence of God, or at the very least "God couldn't possibly be like that" without anything beyond the assertion itself to justify it.

Or at the very least it's the dismissive perspective that the other party in the debate (or the person claiming these religious experiences) is simply lying. Even though there are angles of attack against religious experience from a psychological perspective, I can't remember the last time I heard one be fully articulated.

 

[Emperor Julian]

If a supreme being manifested in front of you and said "Hey, have a personal relationship with me," would it still be hubris? Is there a reason for the answer to change if they appeared in front of someone else rather than you and said "Also, this applies to your whole species"?

Is there a reason that an alien/ineffable being wouldn't deign to such a relationship that doesn't boil down to projecting human values/limitations on something vastly different every bit as much as presuming they would?

It feels like 90+% of the arguments against the existence of God that get tossed around start by presuming the nonexistence of God, or at the very least "God couldn't possibly be like that" without anything beyond the assertion itself to justify it.

No i'd just be dubious and I wouldnt presume anyone should believe me, with someone else? definatly.

Yes and you just answered your own question. it's motives would be so alien that If it did interfere with us it'd be more a cause for alarm than joy.

I'm not an atheist but that isnt an arguement for atheism at all. It seems like you're more structuring it around rejection of a specific god rather than all gods

 

[Shaka Brah]

I'm not an atheist but that isnt an arguement for atheism at all. It seems like you're more structuring it around rejection of a specific god rather than all gods

90% of atheists are really just anti-Christian, so it's pretty spot-on. You never see them take on the cosmological importance or existence of Krishna or Buddha. They rarely even tackle Islam.

 

[Thomas Talus]

No i'd just be dubious and I wouldnt presume anyone should believe me, with someone else? definatly.

Yes and you just answered your own question. it's motives would be so alien that If it did interfere with us it'd be more a cause for alarm than joy.

I'm not an atheist but that isnt an arguement for atheism at all. It seems like you're more structuring it around rejection of a specific god rather than all gods

Even if that someone else had actually had real, direct contact with the divine? Like I said, you're starting from the presumption of falsehood and just riding on that to your conclusion.

Remember how the giant flaming wheels covered in eyes always have to start out by telling people "be not afraid"? But more generally I don't think we have the understanding to know beforehand how we would experience something so alien. And there's also the whole "made in His image" thing that could be interpreted as limiting the alien-ness. If we were made to communicate with God, then why wouldn't we be able to in some fashion?

I'm not making a specific argument so much as pointing out that the usual euphoric arguments against the existence of God aren't even arguments in the formal sense, where agreed-upon priors are followed through to their logical conclusion, they're just shouting your own priors then plugging your ears. "God doesn't exist, so any evidence in support of His existence is clearly false," is just begging the question.

I'd consider the Greek pantheon to be an example of supposed divinity being extremely human-centered. But there are aspects of how Yahweh is described, particularly "I AM THAT I AM," a statement of being a self-caused entity, that actually make sense for an eternal creator-god. It's a valid answer to the question of why anything exists at all.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Even if that someone else had actually had real, direct contact with the divine? Like I said, you're starting from the presumption of falsehood and just riding on that to your conclusion.

Remember how the giant flaming wheels covered in eyes always have to start out by telling people "be not afraid"? But more generally I don't think we have the understanding to know beforehand how we would experience something so alien. And there's also the whole "made in His image" thing that could be interpreted as limiting the alien-ness. If we were made to communicate with God, then why wouldn't we be able to in some fashion?

I'm not making a specific argument so much as pointing out that the usual euphoric arguments against the existence of God aren't even arguments in the formal sense, where agreed-upon priors are followed through to their logical conclusion, they're just shouting your own priors then plugging your ears. "God doesn't exist, so any evidence in support of His existence is clearly false," is just begging the question.

I'd consider the Greek pantheon to be an example of supposed divinity being extremely human-centered. But there are aspects of how Yahweh is described, particularly "I AM THAT I AM," a statement of being a self-caused entity, that actually make sense for an eternal creator-god. It's a valid answer to the question of why anything exists at all.

Theoretically yes but ultimatly you're taking their word for it and thats at best hubris. We're going to have to go into 'proofs' which is a whole new ball park.

It's an pretty weird encounter I'll grant you but the whole thing and the larger context of the book is ultimatly still very human centric, he gets involved in all kinds of asinine petty shit and concepts which should only really matter to people. To the point were some of them are very oblivious hang ups from an ancient culture rather than something an universal supreme being seems likely to say.

Me neither my reply is simply that accusations of arrogence for atheism could be levelled at theistic outlooks I mean I could litterally invert your arguement in this paragraph and it would be a valid arguement.

This is a complete tangent as I'm not Hellenic pagan but the greek/roman gods are about as human centric as Yaweh, while they're more human in depiction. They're also less human focussed in their antics and have mercurial temperment as opposed to yaweh whose hyper focussed on human morality in pretty much every encounter. He also has the same tendancy to demand worship and fixate on things which don't seem like they should matter to a being which if our current models of the universe are anything to go by. Then again a lot off greek/roman eventually didnt really believe in the Hellenistic pantheons as we'd use the word and were more into some sort of platonic supreme being which carried simular issues as yaweh.

 

[AnOminous]

If a supreme being manifested in front of you and said "Hey, have a personal relationship with me," would it still be hubris?

Are you talking about having sex with God? Because seriously, who would say no to that?

 

[Thomas Talus]

Theoretically yes but ultimatly you're taking their word for it and thats at best hubris. We're going to have to go into 'proofs' which is a whole new ball park.

It's an pretty weird encounter I'll grant you but the whole thing and the larger context of the book is ultimatly still very human centric, he gets involved in all kinds of asinine petty shit and concepts which should only really matter to people. To the point were some of them are very oblivious hang ups from an ancient culture rather than something an universal supreme being seems likely to say.

Me neither my reply is simply that accusations of arrogence for atheism could be levelled at theistic outlooks I mean I could litterally invert your arguement in this paragraph and it would be a valid arguement.

This is a complete tangent as I'm not Hellenic pagan but the greek/roman gods are about as human centric as Yaweh, while they're more human in depiction. They're also less human focussed in their antics and have mercurial temperment as opposed to yaweh whose hyper focussed on human morality in pretty much every encounter. He also has the same tendancy to demand worship and fixate on things which don't seem like they should matter to a being which if our current models of the universe are anything to go by. Then again a lot off greek/roman eventually didnt really believe in the Hellenistic pantheons as we'd use the word and were more into some sort of platonic supreme being which carried simular issues as yaweh.

You're still hinging everything on a presumption that a supreme being would not be interested in mortals. What do you know about the nature of a supreme being that would preclude that? Why NOT talk to the self-aware moral agents that you (hypothetically speaking) created? And why wouldn't you speak to them in a way that addresses their specific behaviors and concerns? There's even a line in the Bible that can be plausibly read as suggesting that God doesn't just deal with humans, John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

I don't expect to ever see a formal proof or disproof of God(s) from basic principles. But little to nothing that humans conceptualize and utilize really is. We observe things, measure them where we can, discuss our observations with others, write them down for posterity, rely on the written observations of others, etc. But suddenly, when it comes to questions of religion, observation and recording those observations is treated as worthless. If someone told me an angel visited them last night, I might be more inclined to believe they were tripping balls, but it's not a given that they were incorrect, and if 20 people ran up and told me they just saw a blind man healed by a carpenter telling him to be healed, that's harder to brush off.

 

[Emperor Julian]

You're still hinging everything on a presumption that a supreme being would not be interested in mortals. What do you know about the nature of a supreme being that would preclude that? Why NOT talk to the self-aware moral agents that you (hypothetically speaking) created? And why wouldn't you speak to them in a way that addresses their specific behaviors and concerns? There's even a line in the Bible that can be plausibly read as suggesting that God doesn't just deal with humans, John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

I don't expect to ever see a formal proof or disproof of God(s) from basic principles. But little to nothing that humans conceptualize and utilize really is. We observe things, measure them where we can, discuss our observations with others, write them down for posterity, rely on the written observations of others, etc. But suddenly, when it comes to questions of religion, observation and recording those observations is treated as worthless. If someone told me an angel visited them last night, I might be more inclined to believe they were tripping balls, but it's not a given that they were incorrect, and if 20 people ran up and told me they just saw a blind man healed by a carpenter telling him to be healed, that's harder to brush off.

That Such a being would exist on such a scale to make it highly unlikely, you're talking about an entity so vast in scope that it'd be like talking to the components of an atom. Granted such a being might communicate but how likely does that strike you? Do think such a thing would honestly care if you draw pretty pictures of it for example?
That's a very unusual interpretation of that verse, it almost certainly refers to non-jewish humans since the bible doesnt seem to be paritculary aware of space aliens

Humans regulary appeal to inertia and tradition because of the limitation of our perception . and yes I regularly dismiss 'succesful' faith healers in all likelyhood so do you:

Does this guy really seem like he speaks for a being which exists on a cosmic scale who deigns to heal cripples by the truckload through him or is he just full of shit?