[BortimusPrime]

Alright, someone had to do it. Since the atheists have been politely asked to disengage with the God Pill thread, let's have this thread for the non-believers to discuss the topic.

Let's try to avoid the stuff that's been hashed over endlessly though. No, religious people aren't just stupid. And no one is going to absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God. Though if anyone comes in with an ontological argument feel free to crack it by pointing out the logical/rhetorical fallacies.

[Repo]

As an atheist, I think the atheist equivalent of:

"who builds the roads" -> directed at libertarians

Would be:

"Explain birds" -> directed at atheists.

And then:

"Explain trillians of stars" -> to religious people

So I live and let live and dont view my own perspective as any more well thought out than anyone elses.

[Sidney Crosby]

Guys like Joel Osteen give Christians a bad name, the guy is a snake and just uses god to enrich himself.

[Sgt Donger]

There is a middle ground...agnostic

Meaning that you don't have reason to believe either way. It's a more scientific position in that an agnostic seeks evidence of the existence of a God however is not prepared to dismiss God without evidence of non-existence.

I sort of like this approach...for when I die and I meet God, I will be able to say that now I have proof of your existence I am now a believer. God, being the forgiving chap that he is, will then admit me to Heaven.

The alternative, of course, is that when I die I will cease to exist and never know any better and never meet God because there is no God.

So either way...it's a winning strategy.

[questor70]

I read through where the God Pill thread is going and here's the deal:

It's not at all true that you need to believe in God to have a conscience. The flipside of this logic is equally nasty, that religious people would be incapable of doing the right thing if not for fearing going to hell. If punishment is the only reason for not doing evil, then you don't have a very strong conscience after all as you're still only looking out for your own welfare. Concience has to come from within.

Doing the right thing is largely about empathy, about seeing the world through other people's eyes, being considerate. These are virtuous traits independent of any divine reward or punishment.

While it's true that there are obnoxious atheists who get into fights with the religious like Richard Dawkins, not all of them are that intolerant or condescending. And not all atheists are nihilists.

It's frustrating having other people presume to be able to read your mind and what you believe in when they are dead wrong about it. The strawmanning...

I was once married to a Jehovah's Witness. That religion is effectively a cult. They don't believe in blood transfusions which could have potentially put my daughter in mortal danger. In the inevitable divorce and custody battle, my mother and law came up to me and started chewing me out, saying I didn't believe in anything. Just the standard bashing that the religious do with atheists.

But it was Jesus who coined the phrase let he who is without sin throw the first stone. (I'll spare you stories of some of her sins.)

Let's be honest about the role religion tends to play in joe public. From my vantage point, the majority of those who affiliate with a religion do so in little more than name only. This included my ex-wife, for instance, who was effectively excommunicated from the Jehovah's Witnesses for not adhering to their doctrine.

People belong to religions almost by default due to family and culture. If you grew up in Ireland or in Latin America or Italy, you're probably gonna be a catholic because that's how everyone else is. If you don't want to do that you are going to alienate yourself from your family first, then your peers and the rest of the community. So most people just conform.

This coercive aspect of having to conform really bothers me. Religion is fine, but it must be self-chosen, not just something you adopt through pressure.

Do you think we might ever see an atheist president? Of course not, because of the negative associations. But belonging to an organized religion in no way means that person has been leading a virtuous life.

Even Trump supporters, for instance, can hardly say that the guy is a model of purity despite him claiming to be a believer, and I need not raise the specter of disgraced preachers like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker do I?

So as far as I'm concerned a virtuous life is something you demonstrate with your actions and not your mere affiliation with religion.

Whenever they run polls, the number of those who designate themselves atheist is small, like single digits. But I would bet you that number is much larger, but they don't want to rock the boat, so they won't admit it.

When people bash atheists they ignore the amount of personal courage it takes to be one rather than to just be a poseur to fit in while harboring atheist thoughts.

I respect those who lead their life according to their own ideals and don't simply do (or more appropriately pretend to do) what the rest of society expects them to do. I may not disagree with someone's way of life, but I will respect their personal integrity. I have much less respect for poseurs.

[Sidney Crosby]

I doubt Trump is religious, it seems like he only pretends to be religious because of the base. He may believe in god but it is very obvious that he doesn't know much about the bible.

[BortimusPrime]

(03-30-2019 10:00 PM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

There is a middle ground...agnostic

Meaning that you don't have reason to believe either way. It's a more scientific position in that an agnostic seeks evidence of the existence of a God however is not prepared to dismiss God without evidence of non-existence.

I sort of like this approach...for when I die and I meet God, I will be able to say that now I have proof of your existence I am now a believer. God, being the forgiving chap that he is, will then admit me to Heaven.

The alternative, of course, is that when I die I will cease to exist and never know any better and never meet God because there is no God.

So either way...it's a winning strategy.

In practice I've never seen any actual hard atheists. Most atheists are agnostic but assign a negligible probability of God's existence and zero probability of such a God having anything to do with human religions.

I have encountered a lot of agnostics that really just amount to not having given the question much of any thought, as it's a good answer to avoid getting sucked into a debate. Lots of them are just NPCs and don't care about anything that isn't an HBO series though.

[mickeyd]

The god pill thread is certainly a strange turn to this forum. I always enjoyed gaining different perspectives from reading here, but that thread is a bit of a stretch to read. But I dont mean to direct this at roosh who is fostering a new understanding of life, it just seems that out of nowhere some posters are spouting off sermons like theyre hardcore christians to appease roosh or something. very sycophantic behavior.

Do those posters really practice christian ideals? how about complete celibacy, not even masturbation or perverted thoughts of any form. How about treating everyone as equals? Cant spout your racial theories anymore. Or tithing? the government takes their cut now prepare to give another 10%.

I agree with many christian ideals but fundamentally disagree with some and for that i cant be a true believer in it, nor do I buy the jesus miracles although I dont necessarily doubt he existed or wasnt a wise teacher.

Also Christianity is like swiss cheese as far as a living manual. It doesnt have clear rules on alcohol, homosexuality, and tattoos for example. Should you love your enemy or fight wickedness? Why does god ruin good people while allowing reckless idiots, greedy backstabbers, and violent criminals run amok? Do all those indian people in the amazon using stick bows go to hell too? For this reason alone Christianity is fractured like a broken mirror into all these denominations that take all kinds of various stances on issues like political parties which further muddies the waters.

Ive always enjoyed Roosh's philosophical insights and i hope he can take away the good of christianity while not falling hook line and sinker into the wackiness of it despite the fact that christianity says you must go all in to attain salvation.

[BortimusPrime]

There's some strawmanning of atheists going on in that thread, but my advice is to turn the other cheek. The folks over there that just want to discuss religion would be wise to warn the guys doing it too, because it's just going to bait people into arguing and derail the thread.

I have a bit of concern that this might be the whole forum shifting over to being religious similar to how the liberals got more or less alienated from the forum a few years back. I don't think that's Roosh's intention though.

[Sherman]

I have come to the conclusion that any debate about whether there is a god or not is frivolous, futile, and unproductive. The real reason there is religion is because it helps people cope with the reality of death. So, if it helps, why not make something up? Frank Sinatra summed it up best: "Basically I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels." The problem comes when someone feels a need to push their particular coping mechanism on other people.

[Ouroboros]

(03-30-2019 10:06 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

I read through where the God Pill thread is going and here's the deal:

It's not at all true that you need to believe in God to have a conscience. The flipside of this logic is equally nasty, that religious people would be incapable of doing the right thing if not for fearing going to hell. If punishment is the only reason for not doing evil, then you don't have a very strong conscience after all as you're still only looking out for your own welfare. Concience has to come from within.

Doing the right thing is largely about empathy, about seeing the world through other people's eyes, being considerate. These are virtuous traits independent of any divine reward or punishment.

I used to think the same way, that moral behaviour is just the outward manifestation of empathy. It does seem to make sense when you observe the immoral acts of people who are largely defined by their lack of empathy, like psychopaths or narcissists.

The problem with this explanation of ethics is that 'the right thing to do' often involves resisting your empathetic impulses and requires a colder analysis of what is ultimately 'right'; e.g. punishing your child for bad behaviour, putting limits on the number of refugees permitted to migrate to your country, forcing others to make sacrifices in times of hardship/war, etc.

That's not to say that you need God to have morals, but the complexity of ethics calls for something more than innate empathy. It helps to have a guiding set of principles, especially for people who lack the intellectual capacity or even just the time to independently reason through what is right or wrong (and this is probably the vast majority of people). Such principles can be obtained through the study of philosophy, literature and/or religion. Religion seems to be the best suited for mass public consumption.

In terms of where the God Pill Thread is going, my takeaway was different. I thought that the main focus was not on ethics but on purpose; the idea that the pursuit of hedonism and consumerism is empty, unfulfilling, and a pathway to nowhere - in contrast to the meaning and purpose that belief in God can inspire. Incidentally, I agree with the analysis of the problem but not the solution. My view is that dedicating yourself generally to something greater than selfish impulses is the solution, and that something can take many forms (religion, family, your country, a charity, etc.).

(03-30-2019 10:06 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

While it's true that there are obnoxious atheists who get into fights with the religious like Richard Dawkins, not all of them are that intolerant or condescending. And not all atheists are nihilists.

It's frustrating having other people presume to be able to read your mind and what you believe in when they are dead wrong about it. The strawmanning…

I actually quite like confrontational atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al. It is (or was) entertaining and refreshing to see them on panels with politicians and journalists, countering the mealy mouthed platitudes about 'respect' and 'tolerance' with brutal irreverence and honesty. A lot of the internet-dwelling neckbeards and blue-haired activists who try to emulate the New Atheists are pretty cringeworthy and obnoxious though...

Agree with you on the strawman that atheists=nihilists; it's an unimaginative slur that suggests no meaning or morality can exist without religion, which is simply wrong.

(03-30-2019 10:06 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Let's be honest about the role religion tends to play in joe public. From my vantage point, the majority of those who affiliate with a religion do so in little more than name only. This included my ex-wife, for instance, who was effectively excommunicated from the Jehovah's Witnesses for not adhering to their doctrine.

People belong to religions almost by default due to family and culture. If you grew up in Ireland or in Latin America or Italy, you're probably gonna be a catholic because that's how everyone else is. If you don't want to do that you are going to alienate yourself from your family first, then your peers and the rest of the community. So most people just conform.

This coercive aspect of having to conform really bothers me. Religion is fine, but it must be self-chosen, not just something you adopt through pressure.

You have conformity in every society, religious or irreligious. I bet there are plenty of opinions that you would express here on this forum that you would not express at work or in the company of certain friends or family members, because those opinions conflict with prevailing social norms and values. Conforming is the safest and most logical thing to do if you want to have a conventionally successful social and professional life, in every human society.

The natural question that arises is which societies have values that are, by and large, worth conforming to, in the sense that they maximise the prospects for long-term happiness and fulfilment. An important aspect of this (and an understandable focus of this forum) is which societies produce women that have values most conducive to long term relationships and family formation. Given what the red pill and everyday experience teach us about how women behave in the complete absence of social pressure to resist their worst tendencies, and how travel can reveal the higher quality of women in less Westernised cultures, it's easy to see the appeal of more traditional and 'coercive' societies.

I don't know if religion is necessary to maintain healthy gender relations in such societies, but there seems to be a correlation there. After all, if you're not conforming to religion you will just be conforming to something else, like the values espoused by whichever pop culture icons happen to be popular at the time. Ask yourself this: in a truly conservative religious country, could Ariana Grande or Cardi B have ever achieved their level of influence and become role models for millions of young women and teenage girls?

[EndsExpect]

(03-30-2019 11:43 PM)mickeyd Wrote:  

The god pill thread is certainly a strange turn to this forum. I always enjoyed gaining different perspectives from reading here, but that thread is a bit of a stretch to read. But I dont mean to direct this at roosh who is fostering a new understanding of life, it just seems that out of nowhere some posters are spouting off sermons like theyre hardcore christians to appease roosh or something. very sycophantic behavior.
Do those posters really practice christian ideals? how about complete celibacy, not even masturbation or perverted thoughts of any form. How about treating everyone as equals? Cant spout your racial theories anymore. Or tithing? the government takes their cut now prepare to give another 10%.
I agree with many christian ideals but fundamentally disagree with some and for that i cant be a true believer in it, nor do I buy the jesus miracles although I dont necessarily doubt he existed or wasnt a wise teacher.
Also Christianity is like swiss cheese as far as a living manual. It doesnt have clear rules on alcohol, homosexuality, and tattoos for example. Should you love your enemy or fight wickedness? Why does god ruin good people while allowing reckless idiots, greedy backstabbers, and violent criminals run amok? Do all those indian people in the amazon using stick bows go to hell too? For this reason alone Christianity is fractured like a broken mirror into all these denominations that take all kinds of various stances on issues like political parties which further muddies the waters.
Ive always enjoyed Roosh's philosophical insights and i hope he can take away the good of christianity while not falling hook line and sinker into the wackiness of it despite the fact that christianity says you must go all in to attain salvation.

The direction that Roosh is going isn't odd at all. It's not odd for the forum itself either, because many of the men involved are older now. It's actually a very natural progression.

Many of the questions you have regarding Christianity are simply a lack of you searching for answers.

Yes Christianity has clear answers on Alcohol and other drugs, homosexuality, tattoos, fighting evil and fighting wars. All of these things have been extensively covered and written about over the last 2000 years.

Alcohol for example is not forbidden, but being drunk is sinful. Homosexuality is bad, but it's no different than adultery.

The most interesting stuff is regarding fighting wars.

[Sgt Donger]

(03-31-2019 02:23 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Homosexuality is bad, but it's no different than adultery.

Dude, you better go re-read your bible.

[EndsExpect]

(03-31-2019 02:26 AM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

Dude, you better go re-read your bible.

The Laws of Leviticus come in 3 forms, moral, ceremonial, and civil. These commands are from the Civil Law which only applied to Isrealites living in the land of Canaan. That does not mean the moral proscriptions are invalid. In fact, all punishments of the Civil Law are applied to heaven. Therefore the result of Adultery or Homosexuality would be spiritual death... which is often called Hell.

Leviticus 20:10 ESV
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 (ESV) If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

I point this out because a lot of Atheists think they know something about Christianity when in fact they are like virgin boys who watched a 1920's silent porno and think they know everything about sex. No my friend... you are still just a virgin and your opinion makes you look foolish.

Perhaps we should pivot to a better topic for atheists. Which is better Punctuated Equilibrium or Gradualism? I personally subscribe to punctuated equilibrium modified by field of bullets!

[questor70]

(03-31-2019 01:49 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

The problem with this explanation of ethics is that 'the right thing to do' often involves resisting your empathetic impulses and requires a colder analysis of what is ultimately 'right'

I'm not denying that, which is why my personal ideology has shifted more towards the right vs. how I was raised. But I was mostly responding to the idea that aetheists are unfeeling monsters.

(03-31-2019 01:49 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

I actually quite like confrontational atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al.

I don't because when you come on that strong all you do is preach to the converted. Some of the hero-worship that atheists bestow on these people is misplaced, Hitchens in particular who effectively committed slow suicide by cigarette. The more angry atheists tend to be more interested in tearing shit down for the sake of tearing it down, effectively troll-like behavior. Don't try to tear something down unless you have something you can put in its place.

(03-31-2019 01:49 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

I bet there are plenty of opinions that you would express here on this forum that you would not express at work or in the company of certain friends or family members

There's a difference between simply keeping your mouth shut in the wrong social context and pretending to be something you're not. I don't, let's say, pretend to be a male feminist. If someone pushes my back up against the wall I'm going to at least allude to my red-pill ideas about women. You have to lead an authentic life.

(03-31-2019 01:49 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

I don't know if religion is necessary to maintain healthy gender relations in such societies, but there seems to be a correlation there.

I would agree with that. But I think there are ways to apply checks and balances onto women outside of religion--either fighting fire with fire (Game) or boycotting (MGTOW).

This is why just about every thread complaining about women here tends to split into two camps: those who blame women and those who blame men for enabling women.

[Avoy]

(03-31-2019 01:16 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

I have come to the conclusion that any debate about whether there is a god or not is frivolous, futile, and unproductive. The real reason there is religion is because it helps people cope with the reality of death. So, if it helps, why not make something up? Frank Sinatra summed it up best: "Basically I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels." The problem comes when someone feels a need to push their particular coping mechanism on other people.

That's pretty much what I'm seeing after I stopped posting in the God Pill thread. In short... It's one way. One path to salvation. "You'll know it when it happens to you." Better to let them be and justify their actions among themselves and debate scripture. They're not open to other people's points of view on God that's not Christian-based.

[Zep]

Bosch provided this link, I enjoyed it.

@9.26 - 'the scattering of the mind" , Eastern teachers call it the 'monkey mind'

or western psychologists;

"the fragmented self" - " The basic structure of the self could depend on the balance between intrinsic and extrinsic self-processing. We discuss studies on self-related processing in psychotic disorders that provide converging evidence for disrupted communication between neural networks subserving the so-called intrinsic self and extrinsic self. "

So the east and western religion and psychology are all talking about this basic problem, a divided self.

@10:33 - "while the fragmentation of the fallen self is unified through the invocation of the Jesus prayer", Carl Jung would refer to this as the transcendant function, the way to unify two seeming opposites.

The eastern teacher Jiddu Krishnamurti constantly preached about meditation and going into your suffering, this ultimately leads to the same assimilation.

Components of the personality that need to be unified is a common theme everywhere it seems, there are different choices on how to go about it, religion, psychoanalysis, meditation, drug taking (Ayahuasca ).

I and many others have taken the short-cut to 'God' via LSD. The advantage of this method is it gets you there despite yourself, the disadvantage is you're playing with fire, it's almost 50/50 whether you end up in heaven, or hell. I've witnessed a guy bad-tripping, if that isn't hell, I don't know what is. Also, there are ancillary disciplines that are acquired going about it the long route of study and practice.

@11:18 of the video "but the deeper meaning is the wealth of the soul, our spiritual inheritence, since our substance is the spirit that God has placed within us ..."

Why do we respond to this with a knowing?

Lately I've been wondering about the pre-verbal state of infancy, and how, without the programming to categorize, label, and judge with language, the preverbal state might be our blissful state, at one with everything, unable to separate ourselves from others because of the absence of language, we experience fully. Our parents act as the interface between our infant-selves and the world. They have an operating system, we are the pure experience. A 'Falling From Grace" sounds to me like the exiting of a state of non-conflict because of no language ability into the beginning of fragmentation due to learning, and then judging, etc, getting back to this beautiful, blissful, peaceful state seems to me at times to be what everyone of these teachers is trying to do. Is the reaching for this state of being an unaware or unknowing attempt to get back to a preverbal state where we surely experienced a unity with the world as an infant that was a bliss we haven't felt since and sometimes don't know that we're pursuing because of a lack of memory of that state of Grace. Surely we are resonating with the idea of a state of grace because of a reference experience and I'm postulating that that reference experience is preverbal infancy.

This quote by Mage caught my attention

Quote:

5)Christianity is globalist religion that puts intermediarry between a man and God.

I'd boil this down further to, Language itself puts a barrier between man and nature.

It is the labeling that starts the separation.

If you look at a tree and think, "Maple tree, big, good for x, y, and z" you've put an immediate barrier between you and the tree, this is impossible not to do, especially in the west because we are urged to think, a lot, and fast, and move on! NEXT.

Now consider the other human beings, the labeling, categorizing and conclusions that happen there, it's a mindful. No wonder we can't experience anything purely. But we need an Operating System to interact with the world, the fragmentation is brought about by the ingestion of all sorts of information from the outside unfortunately. Eating from the tree of knowledge?

So, learning to pick what you receive or ignore is the start of a healthy mind, thus healthy spirit.

I see prayer as positive self-hypnosis, which trains the Reticular Activation System to notice the good and stay away from the bad. The 'divine' will visit spontaneously and organically with this training.

[Disco_Volante]

I dont get why they think humans having a nature of objective needs means theres a God. It just means humans are wired a certain way.

Yes humans have needs beyond materialism, but it just means we are wired that way imo.
Community, family, purpose make humans feel better. But how does that prove an afterlife?

Humans also fear death, it's almost as if our minds rationalized a response to that too.

[etwsake]

Thanks for starting this thread.

I strongly disagree with most of what guys were saying in the God Pill thread, but I respect Roosh and what he's built here too much to go mouthing off about it there.

I wouldn't call it a Pill....I'd call it a "crutch."

Nihilism is scary, but at the end of the day, that's all there is. That's all we truly know. Entropy is real. Someday, everything that ever existed will be gone. There is no point to anything. Everything is meaningless. We are all meaningless and insignificant.

I honestly think it's something only people above a certain level of intelligence have to deal with. A majority of the people on the planet are pretty simple creatures and never really think much beyond having their physical needs met. They're born, they live, they die. They just don't think about it. Dumb people really are happier.

But for the rest of us, sooner or later you're gonna realize how fucked we are. Black Pill. Entropy. And that's terrifying on such a primal level that most people simply can't even begin to accept it. They need a crutch. And that means either boozing or drugging yourself to a stupor, or convincing yourself there IS some kind of meaning....let's call it "God." But both of those things are just crutches, not a real way to deal with the brutal reality that comes from accepting the truth: you will die. And someday someone will say your name for the last time, and it's as if you never existed at all. And this will happen to everyone.

[Mage]

99% of vocal atheists are just people with slightly higher IQ then average thinking they are geniuses and blabbing about how smart they are for understanding muh science, at the same time ignoring the truths that:

a)Their high intelligence is built on the physical senses that are limited
b)their high intelligence absent faith or instinct is maladaptive and leads to their extinction

True atheists are not the vocal ones. True atheists do not spend time to argue and reason why they are atheists. True atheists are psychopaths who do whatever they want and run from even a discussion about God and morality like devil from fire.

Homosexuality is the highest expression of atheism.

Homosexuality is much more reasonable when you have such a strong mind that you can override procreation instincts and if you do not accept faith either. No hassle with women, no hassle with children just find a man as horny as you and fuck. it is absolutely the best logical choice from a selfish atheist perspective.

If you are an atheist you are a homosexual in the making. Maybe not you but your children will gradually become more queer with every generation. You will likely not procreate similarly as a homosexual anyway.

Oh wait there might be an even higher form of Atheism - pedophilia. To groom a young child into a partner unable to resist and to install into him any behavior you want to use him as your toy. Cannot get more rational then that. it is the smart thing to do. If you feel any resistance to accepting that fact you are not as atheist as you think you are and you still have some irrational instinct or morality left in you.

[Disco_Volante]

Mage but Christians also say this material world doesn't matter, so why have children? Only the afterlife truly matters, thats why saints were proud to suffer.

If earthly desires are pointless compared to the afterlife, why wouldnt every christian give away everything and live like a beggar? Everyone would live like a priest or a monk if it were that profoundly magnificent. It's better to live in a gutter and beg for food than be rich and concerned with worldly achievements.


Achieving a good job, slim wife, healthy children would be too "materialistic" for the higher consciousness of an afterlife right? The idea that a Priest is choosing the higher path by not being married because marriage is just an Earthly aspect right...


With Christianity it's almost teaching you to NOT win at anything in life, because you'll get a huge prize afterwards. It's why many christians accept the left's premise of giving away their country. Is there an objective christian reason to NOT give away your property? Should I try to succeed and win or not?

Edit: Mage I'm just awfully confused at the christian premise that this world itself is evil and doesn't matter so your personal comfort, success, and satisfaction don't matter, vs. Christians should build, achieve, and win in life.

[Mage]

(03-31-2019 02:24 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Mage but you also say this material world doesnt matter, so why have children? Only the afterlife truly matters, thats why saints were proud to suffer.

Youre walking a line between organizing a successful society then turning around and saying this world is ruled by Satan and all earthly things are ultimately pointless. Which is it?

I never said that.

I am not a Christian. Not an atheist either.

If you argue with a theist and assume he is your run off the mill Christian instantly then you are not a logical person. You overestimate your mind. You think you know but you don't know. You build your world view on hasty assumptions. If you did it here you can do it elsewhere.

I believe in reincarnation. This world matters, you might live here again.

[BortimusPrime]

(03-31-2019 02:18 PM)Mage Wrote:  

99% of vocal atheists are just people with slightly higher IQ then average thinking they are geniuses and blabbing about how smart they are for understanding muh science, at the same time ignoring the truths that:

a)Their high intelligence is built on the physical senses that are limited
b)their high intelligence absent faith or instinct is maladaptive and leads to their extinction

True atheists are not the vocal ones. True atheists do not spend time to argue and reason why they are atheists. True atheists are psychopaths who do whatever they want and run from even a discussion about God and morality like devil from fire.

Homosexuality is the highest expression of atheism.

Homosexuality is much more reasonable when you have such a strong mind that you can override procreation instincts and if you do not accept faith either. No hassle with women, no hassle with children just find a man as horny as you and fuck. it is absolutely the best logical choice from a selfish atheist perspective.

If you are an atheist you are a homosexual in the making. Maybe not you but your children will gradually become more queer with every generation. You will likely not procreate similarly as a homosexual anyway.

Oh wait there might be an even higher form of Atheism - pedophilia. To groom a young child into a partner unable to resist and to install into him any behavior you want to use him as your toy. Cannot get more rational then that. it is the smart thing to do. If you feel any resistance to accepting that fact you are not as atheist as you think you are and you still have some irrational instinct or morality left in you.

If you're a biological machine that evolved to make copies of itself then buttfucking and raping children is not a rational conclusion you would come to. The fact of the matter is that a lot of religious morality is just ritualizing a set of adaptive behaviors. The dumb atheists are the liberal ones that look at say Catholic or Mormon breeding strategies and think not having children or families is somehow a better choice.

[questor70]

(03-31-2019 02:18 PM)Mage Wrote:  

True atheists are psychopaths who do whatever they want and run from even a discussion about God and morality like devil from fire.

And here comes the strawmanning and slander again.

Do you want me to on a tear about the downside of what religion has brought to the world? Maybe start with the Spanish Inquisition? The various pissing contest wars between Catholics and Portestants? The crusades? The scourge of radical islam?

Nothing good will come from striking this sort of one-sided tone.

[Mage]

(03-31-2019 02:44 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 02:18 PM)Mage Wrote:  

99% of vocal atheists are just people with slightly higher IQ then average thinking they are geniuses and blabbing about how smart they are for understanding muh science, at the same time ignoring the truths that:

a)Their high intelligence is built on the physical senses that are limited
b)their high intelligence absent faith or instinct is maladaptive and leads to their extinction

True atheists are not the vocal ones. True atheists do not spend time to argue and reason why they are atheists. True atheists are psychopaths who do whatever they want and run from even a discussion about God and morality like devil from fire.

Homosexuality is the highest expression of atheism.

Homosexuality is much more reasonable when you have such a strong mind that you can override procreation instincts and if you do not accept faith either. No hassle with women, no hassle with children just find a man as horny as you and fuck. it is absolutely the best logical choice from a selfish atheist perspective.

If you are an atheist you are a homosexual in the making. Maybe not you but your children will gradually become more queer with every generation. You will likely not procreate similarly as a homosexual anyway.

Oh wait there might be an even higher form of Atheism - pedophilia. To groom a young child into a partner unable to resist and to install into him any behavior you want to use him as your toy. Cannot get more rational then that. it is the smart thing to do. If you feel any resistance to accepting that fact you are not as atheist as you think you are and you still have some irrational instinct or morality left in you.

If you're a biological machine that evolved to make copies of itself then buttfucking and raping children is not a rational conclusion you would come to. The fact of the matter is that a lot of religious morality is just ritualizing a set of adaptive behaviors. The dumb atheists are the liberal ones that look at say Catholic or Mormon breeding strategies and think not having children or families is somehow a better choice.

You are confused.

Procreating is good for your genes. Not for your rational selfish mind. It is not rational to care about you making copies of yourself because you are not your copies.

Instinct to procreate uses sexual desires to override your mind. Faith protects these instincts so that societies do not go extinct once people get so selfish and smart that they realize that procreation is a burden. In western society religions have failed their job. The triumphant atheism leads to increasing homosexuality and pedophilia will fallow soon.

You are not as rational as you think you are if your life goal is procreation. If you want to procreate you will understand that being in camp of atheism is the wrong camp for you.

(03-31-2019 02:46 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 02:18 PM)Mage Wrote:  

True atheists are psychopaths who do whatever they want and run from even a discussion about God and morality like devil from fire.

And here comes the strawmanning and slander again.

Do you want me to on a tear about the downside of what religion has brought to the world? Maybe start with the Spanish Inquisition? The various pissing contest wars between Catholics and Portestants? The crusades? The scourge of radical islam?

Nothing good will come from striking this sort of one-sided tone.

These tiny religious wars and persecutions are dwarfed by the atheist killings and persecutions of WW1, WW2, and Communist regimes. And abortions.

Atheism has killed more.

Jesus said "they will see a splinter in your eye but they will not see a log in their own"

Invoking Spanish Inquisition and not mentioning Communist killings? A failed attempt to shame me. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Also as I already said I am not a Christian. Do not try to blame me for Christians sins. I am also not a Mohammedan. You cannot blame me for their stupid religion.

To the defense of Christians I would say their wars were more likely political and used religion only as justification. Islam is a problem in itself that is true.

Atheist wars and killings are unashamedly political and have no justification. But they still happen and on even more grander scales.

Look I am not trying to slander atheists or you personally. What I want to show to you is that atheism taken to it's logical end only leads to death, and perversion. If you have any morality left in you then you are not as atheist as you think you are. You are just a confused person much more then your pride allows you to accept. Any morality you have in you comes from God and is above cold reason. Fallow cold reason and end up being truly evil or try to explore your conscienceless and start believing in God.