Home › Forums › Philosophy › athiest mgtow
This topic contains 98 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by 
Anonymous 4 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
this topic is for atheist Its not a place for debates, even though KeyMaster has said religious debates and discussions are welcome no matter how heated..I have read a few of these and participated but that’s not why I started this topic…I have a few questions and then I will bow out and come back from time to time for any answers you may give….As a man with a strong opinion about everyone having the right to their own beliefs. I shall not come in the “atheist mgtow” room and start criticizing and attacking anyone for any answers or discussions they post. This room is for athiest and I am a man of faith, I will respect your right to say anything you desire about religion and those who practice it as long as you don’t go next door and do it…..I will ask the same respect for the “mgtow of faith” room I will create next door…..these two rooms become my experiment in boundaries while at the same time creating a safe discussion space for non-believers and believers alike……Now my Questions what are you thoughts on these articles? and most importantly
Is atheism hatred of religion and religious people?
Do you Hate the people next door?
Can you refrain from going next door and telling them?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/12/01/do-atheists-have-faith-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/
http://www.strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-belief/
<h2 align=”center”></h2>
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Atheism is simply a lack of believe in all gods. People come to atheism for all sorts of reasons, some good, some bad. Some atheists come to there lack of belief because they where abused when they were young, for them hate may be a thing. I think most reason their way to atheism; they care about what is true and not what is comfortable. They may hate the irrationality of faith. I myself find irrationality the bane of humanity.
I don’t hate people for what they say or believe. Judge people by their actions; I hate the religious who murder cartoonists.
As to the last link you posted. They misunderstand agnosticism. It’s an epistemic claim and says nothing about belief. One can be a theistic agnostic or you can have an atheistic agnostic. The first speaks to belief the other to the impossibility of knowing.
The problem with agnosticism is it claims to know something about god; that it is beyond knowing. This is a contradiction.
It’s irrational to think we should all agree and have the same beliefs..or that someone else is intellectually inferior simply because of there beliefs…I find that the beliefs of others cannot effect me emotionally…Religious debates are fun for me for this reason…the winner in those debates is not the one who has more proving points or factual evidence for or against their beliefs or lack of beliefs, but the one who controls his emotions is the most intellectually superior…The one who is moved to intolerance and anger, they are like a child having a tantrum…I have witnessed both sides do this the faithful believers and the atheist….Nothing is ever proven or dis proven, except who is more in control of their own emotions….
atheistic agnostic= bulls~~~ theoretical physicists
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
I wouldn’t have such a problem with religious people if they kept their beliefs private. I don’t believe in Santa Claus either, but I don’t have any objection with parenting telling their children about Santa Claus. Nobody knocks on my door to ask me if I’m on Santa’s naughty or nice list. Nobody is trying to pass laws or discriminate against people as a result of their belief in Santa. Nobody is trying to blockade the progress of science because of their beliefs in the story of Santa. There is no death penalty for one giving up belief in Santa or drawing cartoons of Santa. If the vast majority of theists were as benign with their beliefs as the believers of Santa, I suspect the debate between theists and atheists would be relatively insignificant.
“It’s irrational to think we should all agree and have the same beliefs”
I disagree. I think it reasonable that we should all believe in gravity, that the sky is blue, that the moon orbits the earth, etc. Reason and evidence will lead people to the same beliefs; Those that are irrational will simply go off the rails into delusion.
“…or that someone else is intellectually inferior simply because of there beliefs”
If someone beliefs something with insufficient evidence then they are negligent. If they believe something counter to reason and evidence then their beliefs are inferior.
“I find that the beliefs of others cannot effect me emotionally…Religious debates are fun for me for this reason…the winner in those debates is not the one who has more proving points or factual evidence for or against their beliefs or lack of beliefs, but the one who controls his emotions is the most intellectually superior…The one who is moved to intolerance and anger, they are like a child having a tantrum…”
So you think Trolls are winners? The purpose of debate is not to provoke emotions and the one that does is just a troll not intellectually superior.
“Nothing is ever proven or dis proven, except who is more in control of their own emotions….”
Things are proven and dis-proven all the time; I’m sure you’ve heard of science and mathematics. I hope you’re not the “everything is subjective” type.
There are different categories of beliefs. Gravity is an observable fact (one category). Deity cannot be directly observed (another category).
Believing (if that is even the right word) in gravity is a far cry from believing in some god or another.
Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?
Categories of belief, unless you ascribe to a William James philosophical pragmatism or other unique epistemology, belief is one category varying only in strength.
Believing something without reason and no evidence is, by definition, irrational. And being lead by irrationalities separates people from the real word and leaves them stranded in delusion.
The radical feminist ignores evidence and reason and see where that has left them.
Reason is the only path to truth. In the feminist, we see what happens when emotions replace reason.
Faith and reason are integral parts of humanity. We operate on both. To be short in either one or the other is damaging. They do not contradict each other, but rather complement each other.
The “rational” man has no choice but to have faith in the observations and opinions of others. One man cannot experience or observe everything.
The man of “faith” has no choice but to explain his faith through reason, otherwise it is blind and subject to personal whim.
While it is true there are fundamental axiom we must accept, this is not faith. They are considered necessary starting points. We assume, as an axiom that the external world does exist and we are not brains in a vat. Believing in Solipsism is an unfalsifiable position to hold.
One does not need to experience everything to be rational; that’s a rather silly point to make.
We extrapolate our experiences. Science is based on this deductive reasoning. Ohm’s law holds true in the electronic device you are using and it will hold true with electronic devices you don’t experience.
Explaining your faith with reason is called apologetic s. People who do this put the cart before the horse. When you start off with a conclusion first you leave yourself open to many fallacies in your reasoning. (see Confirmation bias) It’s best to draw conclusions from the evidence.
Faith is irrational. If you’re going to hold a position without a good reason, tentatively, until you investigate a proposition then faith is justified. Any position held because of faith should not be believed until there is sound reasons justifying that belief.There’s a wide array of thinking models (Theism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Pantheism, Nihilism, etc ad nausea) You’ve got plain old theism covering thousands of versions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They can’t all be right, as they make incompatible claims, and if a man must choose one, he should expect eternal damnation as a matter of probability. Mormons, Sunni Muslims, Calvinists and Orthodox Jews, to name a few, insist that all the others are doomed. Which flavor of ice cream do you want your cavity from?
It’s important to point out about atheism, which is merely the lack of belief in any god, that there are many opposed groups who claim the title. I prefer to loosely identify two types of atheists. This separation isn’t to suggest people don’t fall in the grey area or that some atheist can’t be categorized this way:
One group has a purely emotional injury and adopted the title out of vengeance towards the church. You know them well; homosexuals and women. But if the church had dogma that didn’t offend them, they would be totting the cross hell or high water. This group does have some major points against the perpetual violation of human rights and moral negligence. There’s no shortage of proof for their claims but it’s a whole different topic.
The other group has a purely intellectual problem. You’ll hear them say things like, “The absence of evidence IS evidence for absence.” They have a point. For some time now, we’ve been able to detect everything. Even “dark energy” is measurable from our tiny planet, slinging galaxy clusters across open space. The intellectual atheist has a true gift for objective realism.
The main grievance is not only that the religious can’t surface the simplest requisite of some evidence but their whole narrative about the existence of such a being is totally anthropomorphic. In our sight of an incomprehensibly massive universe, it’s truly a foolish insult to deem it constructed. That assertion is merely us looking in the mirror. He creates, he destroys, he judges, he sacrifices, he loves, he expects loyalty and of course he had to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He’s everything we are and everything we’d foolishly want to be.
Just picture homo Australopithecus, 3 millions years ago. He sees tasty fruit growing on a tree and thinks the tree has snubbed him when it won’t produce more fruit. We still do this, it anthropomorphic instinct. He sees the sun rolling through the sky casting light; which he assumes is for his benefit. Philosophers, with the help of telescopes and microscopes, no longer have to query in this vain way, thinking we’re da bomb, hopelessly enshrined in arrogance. To account for, this once adaptive characteristic turned flaw, we have to respect objective realism and what that road can lead us to.
Morals have a lot to do with beliefs. Beliefs can be translated to values. Values can be accounted for by facts. It’s not wrong to say, “It’s a fact that Muslims are immoral for stoning women to death for adultery.” In no sense does stoning her contribute to her well-being. I could on at length but it’s been thoroughly animated by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and many others.
At some point soon, we are going to have to globally agree that blinding little girls with acid for learning to read, or mutilating their genital, or preventing stem cell research that can save millions of people, or punishing people fro smoking weed or prostitution (victim less crimes) — we’re going to have to admit that these gifts from religion are antithesis to the progress of our species. The Christians have admittedly gotten better since their 14th century barbarism, but if they had possessed biological or nuclear weaponry. This is exactly what’s happening with a literally twice as violent dogma, held by 100’s of millions of people at the exact same insecure, 700 year adolescence phase. Islam will unmake this world if we don’t wise up and drop the bronze age delusions. The Christians can say nothing about the moral behavior of Muslims apart from “their praying to the wrong god.” If they were praying to the right god, what they are doing would be good apparently.
Thanks for reading. I quoted without citing Sam Harris here so I just want to give him due credit for borrowing his words.
“The absence of evidence IS evidence for absence.”
This is a fallacy. If something is logically possible it can not be ruled out; it’s the problem of proving a negative.
If a claim was made that unicorns existed, that is a horse with a horn, such a thing is logically possible. If i were to search the entire universe and found no unicorn i still could not say, said unicorn cannot exist because in the time it would take to search one end of the universe to the other a unicorn could have evolved. Gods/supernatural things do not fall into this category of logically possible.
Though I can never say unicorns don’t exist I cannot say they do either. One must withhold belief until you have evidence.
“The absence of evidence IS evidence for absence.”
Ok, you have him there, Qbeck. His argument is an argument from silence, or argumentum e silentcio, where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. So it’s fallacious.
But I think he merely misspoke on that point. The unicorn example is one way to refute it, but do you really think that unicorns exist? Do you?
Do you think that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq when Bush went looking for them? He looked, and looked, and looked, and kept swearing they were there. He wanted so damn badly for there to be proof that they were there. Spent millions of man hours going through surveillance footage, sending in teams of agents, getting the support of locals. Are you going to claim that they were any nukes or dirty bombs or dirty pictures or anything to be found? Really?
My point is that religion is like a relentless schizophrenic. It tries and tries and tries to find something that isn’t there, and then claims we have to “withhold belief until there is evidence.” No, we don’t.
Critical thinking requires that you have sound reasons for your beliefs, not that you have some belief and then you try to twist empirical observations and employ sophistry to justify some bias. If we look, and look, and look for something and it isn’t there, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is a fair PROBABILITY that it isn’t. That’s the nature of an ampliative argument, which has validity within the realm of logic. Just because scientists can’t arrive at an absolute and deductive “unicorn” conclusion doesn’t make them wrong. As humans, we often have to go with the best bet, and science provides the method for trying to find it.
Faith is belief without proof. Critical thinking is making sure you have proof for your beliefs. Therefore, faith denies critical thinking. QED.
On a different topic, I have called myself both atheist and agnostic before, but always knew that neither was an adequate reflection of my beliefs. Then I listened to Thorium, a YouTuber whos “Holy Hand Grenade of MGTOW” video was so hilarious and spot on. He claims to be an antitheist, which makes sense for me too. An antitheist is simply opposed to religion. No religion or church that I’ve ever found has beliefs that hold up to critical examination, save Buddhism (which by all accounts is more of a practice) and the Church of the Subgenius (a hilarious mock-church). As an antitheist, one doesn’t have to believe or not believe in a deity or deities. They only have to realize that religion itself is a harmful and unsubstantiated belief system.
Terminal Meme—Thank you for bringing Sam Harris to my attention. Please don’t think that your arguments in the Free Will Drunken Monkey Brain Mutual Masturbation thread were in vain. The sophists there were so mind numbingly sophomoric I had to look into Sam for myself. I’d like to discuss Harris later, after I read some of his actual work (rather than mere wikapedia summations). Hang in there, brother! You are not alone in your quest for truth.
“But I think he merely misspoke on that point. The unicorn example is one way to refute it, but do you really think that unicorns exist? Do you?”
He did capitalize “IS” in that statement so I assumed it wasn’t a typo.
I thought my posts were clear on this point. I don’t believe in unicorns.
My previous posts:
“If someone beliefs something with insufficient evidence then they are negligent. If they believe something counter to reason and evidence then their beliefs are inferior.”
“Believing something without reason and no evidence is, by definition, irrational. And being lead by irrationalities separates people from the real word and leaves them stranded in delusion.”
“Any position held because of faith should not be believed until there is sound reasons justifying that belief.”
“Though I can never say unicorns don’t exist I cannot say they do either. One must withhold belief until you have evidence.”
“My point is that religion is like a relentless schizophrenic. It tries and tries and tries to find something that isn’t there, and then claims we have to “withhold belief until there is evidence.” No, we don’t.”
Unicorns defined as a horse with a horn on it’s head, would be considered logically possible.
Gods/supernatural things are NOT logically possible.
I can say I don’t believe in unicorns but i can’t say that a logically possible thing doesn’t exist. It’s the impossibility of proving a negative and it’s why the one making the claim has the burden of proof.
I can, however, say that logically impossible things like Gods/supernatural things don’t exist. Much like I can say with 100% certainty that square circles don’t exist.
I think you misunderstood my position. I never meant to imply that we cannot say god does not exist. In fact, we can rely on reason alone with no need for evidence because supernatural claims are self contradictory.
This statement i have an issue with:
“As an antitheist, one doesn’t have to believe or not believe in a deity or deities. They only have to realize that religion itself is a harmful and unsubstantiated belief system.”
Atheism is not believing in deities, nothing more nothing less.
Not believing because you realize that religion itself is harmful… is an fallacy. Argument from effect.
FYI I love Sam Harris s books. Giving a rational foundation for ethics is a step in the right direction.Ahh—Qbeck. I think we are of like mind, and I apologize for not going into detail on my position.
First, I didn’t really mean to aim the unicorn thing at you in particular. We both arrive at the same conclusion, but use different arguments. I like to use the “looking for weapons of mass destruction” comparison to ontological god hunts for my typical argument, while you use an argument based on belief without reason.
On antitheism versus atheism, you are correct as well. When it comes down to it, they are the same. But claiming to be an antitheist really throws off smug bible bangers who try to trap you with “how can you know for sure that god doesn’t exist” kinds of arguments. When you say you are an antitheist and they ask if you believe in a god or not, you can claim that you don’t care. You are against religion, not god. It puts the emphasis where it needs to be while making the supporter defend the actions of his church rather than the supposed existence of a god. Tactics, bro, tactics.
OOhh, and I’ve only just started on Harris, but listened to an interview on the “Very Bad Wizards” show. Ethics for me is such a dry and repetitive subject, but he’s definitely got some fresh takes. It’s hard for me to believe, but I’m kindof excited about ethics again!
Thanks for your courteous reply, Qbeck!
One cannot prove a negative. So one cannot prove something does not exist.
So one is stuck having to prove a positive, that God exists.
However, if God was subject to the scientific method, then he would not be God. Because he would then be subject to something greater than himself. The scientific method is not a be all end all in knowledge. It is a method for procuring knowledge about the physical world. Let me repeat that: It is a method. The scientific method, in itself, is actually a philosophy for understanding pieced together from several philosophers such as Aristotle and Descarte. The scientific method also comes from parts of alchemy during and prior to the middle ages. It is an abstract idea applied to better understand the physical universe through sensory experience. Philosophers, such as Aristotle, who premise their philosophies on sense experience come to the conclusion that there is a diety.
If man could completely understand God, then God would not be God. Man would be God if he knew God completely. But the evidence does not point to man being God because he is far from being all powerful or all knowing. Even acknowledging the scientific method as a necessary path to “wisdom” would require God to be tested on Man’s terms.
Quantum Mechanics makes the scientific method fall flat on its head. It does not make reality fall flat on its head, nor philosophy or reason. Just the scientific method.
The problem with scientific atheism is that it’s fundamental premise is: If man cannot understand it, then it must not exist.
However there is no evidence that man can understand everything or even has the potential too. Believe in man’s infinite potential is to state man will always be finite. One cannot have potential and be complete.
Faith is a necessity in many respects. Man cannot know everything. Here is a simple example: a million dollars. Most people here have not seen a million dollars. Yet many believe it be in existence. Why? Because of the faith they had in others observations.
Reason is also important. Through reason we come to better understand who/what/where/why/how we believe and for what purposes.
Atheism is a philosophy of insane pride in man’s ability to observe. Just because we took a s~~~ on the moon, some how some men think we have become technological gods. I actually do not get this philosophy at all. Science only proves how finite we really are.
John Doe does not understand the meanings of basic terms of Logic. Every independent term in bold face in this post has been misused by John Doe.
“The problem with scientific atheism is that it’s fundamental premise is: if man cannot understand it, then it cannot exist.”
Statements that together form a reason for a conclusion are referred to as arguments. Your supposed “problem” (which no rational atheist would ever claim anyway) is not a premise as you claim at all, it is demonstrably an argument. “If…then…” is the format of an argument, not a premise.
“Atheism is a philosophy of insane pride…”, “The scientific method, in itself, is actually a philosophy…”, “…your philosophy is the product of an inefficient and flawed universe…”,“…your philosophy collapses in on itself…”, etc. (these are your words from this thread and others.)
You use the term philosophy to mean belief, argument, collection of data, or whatever you want in any given post. You do this with other critical words as well. In so doing, every post you make illustrates the fallacy of equivocation, or using two or more meanings for the same term. It makes everything you say confusing gibberish.
Notice that I actually told you what specific fallacy you were guilty of. You, however, use the term “fallacy” mindlessly and without explanation. Quaint phrases like “…fall(s) flat on its head…”and “…collapses in on itself…” are meaningless knee jerk attacks. How is such and such fallacious? Is it a fallacy merely because you disagree?
You misuse the terms premise, argument, philosophy, logic, truth, fallacy, etc., etc., on every post you make. You throw around words that are used in very specific ways by logicians in a ways that makes it obvious you don’t understand their use. It’s as if you are constantly saying field goal when you should mean home run, only worse.
Why do you do this? You claimed on an another thread that you have taken “500+ level” courses in Logic. You demonstrate no such subject knowledge. I suspect you do this to assert yourself as some authority to promote your own ego. You embarrass yourself repeatedly to those who actually understand critical thinking. You confuse deductive and inductive reasoning. You name drop philosophers without indicating their specific views on topics, as if by naming them you somehow make your views theirs.
The whole ontology of religion debate is sophomoric. Every first year philosophy student loves to argue about this inherently unprovable crap. Effective minds have actually done a reasonable job on both sides (Kierkegaard, for example, was a brilliant Christian). But you bring nothing but dogma, confusion, and gibberish. Please, John Doe, if what you said about actually studying philosophy is true, please employ the same accuracy that philosophers do. I urge you to go online to Khan Academy and take their critical thinking course. It’s free. Seriously. Refresh your mind and remove some of the cobwebs, I beg you. For our benefit as well as yours.
If a man refuses to listen to another’s reasons for believing what he believes, he makes himself a slave to his own beliefs because he leaves himself no recourse to change his mind..
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
qbeck01 makes an attempt at debate with this.
“It’s irrational to think we should all agree and have the same beliefs”
I disagree. I think it reasonable that we should all believe in gravity, that the sky is blue, that the moon orbits the earth, etc. Reason and evidence will lead people to the same beliefs; Those that are irrational will simply go off the rails into delusion.
“…or that someone else is intellectually inferior simply because of there beliefs”
If someone beliefs something with insufficient evidence then they are negligent. If they believe something counter to reason and evidence then their beliefs are inferior.
“I find that the beliefs of others cannot effect me emotionally…Religious debates are fun for me for this reason…the winner in those debates is not the one who has more proving points or factual evidence for or against their beliefs or lack of beliefs, but the one who controls his emotions is the most intellectually superior…The one who is moved to intolerance and anger, they are like a child having a tantrum…”
So you think Trolls are winners? The purpose of debate is not to provoke emotions and the one that does is just a troll not intellectually superior.
“Nothing is ever proven or dis proven, except who is more in control of their own emotions….”
Things are proven and dis-proven all the time; I’m sure you’ve heard of science and mathematics. I hope you’re not the “everything is subjective” type.
I will only address one part of this attempt…
I hope you’re not the “everything is subjective” type.
I am the type who claims the right to free will…claiming said right. I also have the right to change my stance on any issue.. I will frustrate the best debater…. I am the type that reads for fun…but makes up his own mind what to believe..I started the topic only as an experiment to see which room would be the most argumentative.. which room would debate and argue …even though I stated it was not what the topic was for…I have no need or reason to debate..I have my answer for which group feels the need to prove themselves, while at the same time perceiving themselves to be of superior intellect. I have nothing to prove nor a need to try and change anyone’s beliefs or ideas…
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
This dual thread “mgtow of faith” versus “athiest mgtow” (funny how you de-legitimize atheism by spelling it wrong) is a farce. Harpo Mason advocates religion through intellectual dishonesty.
1) You promote the faith side by encouraging “…stories, articles, sayings, pictures, prayers, and anything pro-faith or pro religion”, yet you encourage no such pro ANYTHING on the atheist side. You only tell the atheists not to argue.
What a load of myopic, one sided bias. Atheists have many positive things to add to the world. You could encourage humanism, ethics, evidence based reasoning, or any number of SECULAR notions on the atheist side, Harpo. A fair comparison isn’t what you’re after, obviously.
2) Atheist bashing (in the form of pro “faith” sophistry) is happening on the atheist thread, yet you do nothing to discourage it. You fold your arms in front of you and act like a troll. Meaningful arguments are being repeated over and over again (such as Qbeck’s notion that critical thinking and reasoning requires positive evidence for the existence of something in order to formulate belief). You even acknowledge these arguments by re-quoting them. And then, like a schizophrenic, you ignore what’s happening and tell us how you have such free will and how great you are. Nice.
3) You try to shame the atheists (or antitheists, in my case) in your topic introduction by asking…
“Is atheism hatred of religion and religious people? Do you Hate the people next door? Can you refrain from going next door and telling them?”
Which aren’t questions you ask on the “faith” side, implying that atheists are haters. To make it fair, on the “atheist” side, why didn’t you ask…
“Is religion hatred of secular people? Do you hate the atheists and secular humanists next door? Can you refrain from going next door and telling them?”
Seriously, why is there one standard for the side you agree with and not the other? Do you need to claim that you need protection from “atheist privilege” because atheists are “natural” haters and are instinctively aggressive? Why do you use these patently FEMINIST TACTICS? Are you a woman, Harpo? If not, then why do you portray “mgtow of faith” as being pro-this and pro-that while denying that “atheist mgtow” can have positive attributes?
Other people have already fallen for your dichotomy, so changing your wording retroactively would be useless.
What you have labeled an “experiment” is nothing more than you masturbating into your bible. How blasphemous.
Very astute Elemental I like you…at least you found a way to attack that I can’t argue with..If we are here to learn +1 for teaching me a lesson (even if it was about myself).. but aren’t those the best ones to learn? I do not attack non believers for the way they believe or what they believe or don’t,, but in a way I do have a bias.. I find that they claim believers some how force religion on them but in my experience in these matters it’s them who attack and call names the most..And get angry if you fail to see things their way…By addressing your post in this way I pray (Hope you don’t mind ) that you see that I am open minded and reasonable.. You did confuse me. but not angry.. I will get back to this after I think about it a bit more…
I don’t study atheism so ignorant about some of the beliefs or non beliefs and I used spellchecker… there should be no shame in ignorance… We gain our knowledge from our willingness to learn…And every one is ignorant to some degree…
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
