Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?
This topic contains 96 replies, has 40 voices, and was last updated by 
Elgos_Grim 4 years, 7 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Ynys: Quick response would be yes in one respect and no in another.
This conversation topic would require a thread of its own. I don’t want to divert this one to some “side conversation.” Start a thread in the philosophy section for this topic. It is a good one to discuss.
Keymaster: Okay, cool with that.
However you bring up an interesting topic with the “thou shall not kill” argument, I have probably should have addressed earlier.
The crusade resulted in about 1.3 millions casualites, inflicted by catholics, if I am correct.
Atheism? (now one or two of them are debatable as to beliefs, but it get the point across)
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
Anonymous23Christ, I didn’t realise how heated this thread had become – As much as I dislike talking about Religion, it is heartening to see KeyMaster not behaving like the typical admin and closing topics when arguments happen. I like it here. 😉
John – See Philosophy section at your convenience. I’m interested in your opinion when you have a moment – Please forgive my inevitable long delays in replying. It’s probably laziness..!
@ John Doe
You included murders that were not committed in the name of atheism but by people who happened to be atheists. Besides, comparing the number of murders is off-topic and totally pointless in this discussion. KeyMaster just pointed out another hypocrisy.
Like speaking to a feminist. Pointless.
Yes. I wanted to give it a shot because MGTOW tend to value truth and rationality highly but in this case it’s entirely pointless. I think a better approach than refuting arguments might be to show believers alternative ways of meeting their emotional needs so they aren’t as defensive and irrational in trying to protect their identity.
You included murders that were not committed in the name of atheism but by people who happened to be atheists.
Communist sanctioned atheism to be exact. Which is why a few were back and forth.
KeyMaster just pointed out another hypocrisy.
Actually, one is required to defend oneself or another, and the first few crusades were about that. His point was that religion (I am assuming a focus on Christianity, and by the example probably Catholic) cause the “Most” harm and statistically it is not true.
I wanted to give it a shot because MGTOW tend to value truth and rationality highly
Yes we do, and because we do, we can keep an open mind. I asked a question at the beginning of the thread, no atheist had a rational response. The question was not irrational. You are men of faith in the respect that the natural world is “it” in some respects. People like atheism because it gives them the illusion they are in control of their own lives completely/or for the most part. The desire for control is the greatest desire their is, more than being loved. Atheism is an emotional crutch.
Communist sanctioned atheism to be exact. Which is why a few were back and forth.
My point still stands. Take Hitler for example, he clearly didn’t murder in the name of atheism (a lack of belief in gods).
I asked a question at the beginning of the thread, no atheist had a rational response.
You don’t even understand what atheism exactly means but have misconceptions which I pointed out several times and you still don’t get it. Also I answered your question: “Atheists can be MGTOW because ‘a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods’ can obviously still go their own way. Why the heck would irrational faith in a god/gods be required? Let me remind you once again not to interpret irrelevant s~~~ into atheism.”
You are men of faith in the respect that the natural world is “it” in some respects.
Atheism: A lack of belief in gods. It’s not a belief system for the 100th time. If you’d rather use another definition then make that clear and post it here. As already stated there are atheists who BELIEVE gods don’t exist but they are merely a subset. The American Atheists organization uses “a lack of belief in gods” and clearly states that “Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods”.
People like atheism because it gives them the illusion they are in control of their own lives completely/or for the most part. The desire for control is the greatest desire their is, more than being loved. Atheism is an emotional crutch.
Believing in a loving God, the afterlife, clear values and purpose etc seems very appealing. Religion is full of wishful thinking and usually ambiguous enough to adapt it to one’s needs through interpretation and cherry picking. Being in control involves taking personal responsibility, which isn’t all that much fun. Look at how many men submit to women’s approval for example. They don’t want to be in control but submit to an authority and get validation, a sense of belonging and purpose etc. Anyway, since there’s no substantial evidence for the existence of God or gods, atheism (a lack of belief in gods) is the rational stance regardless of whether it’s appealing or not.
Take Hitler for example, he clearly didn’t murder in the name of atheism (a lack of belief in gods).
That is why I said only a few examples were back an forth.
An atheist can obviously be a MGTOW because a lack of belief in gods doesn’t stop him from going his OWN way.
If there are only natural laws (particles) then their is no free will. MGTOW is a philosophy dependent on personal sovereignty which requires free will. I covered this several times already. That was the point of this argument.
Atheism: A lack of belief in gods. It’s not a belief system for the 100th time. If you’d rather use another definition then make that clear and post it here.
I get it, the atheist believes in no God/gods/diety. Atheists believe in science. Science is the ability to observe. Athiests believe in man’s ability to observe, thereby elevating man to a “god-like” status.
Their should be a dividing line here because your argument in distancing itself from my original thread question, which is really a yes/no answer. If you want to continue the debate on a similar atheism related subject, just open a thread in the philosophy section and I will be there.
They don’t want to be in control but submit to an authority and get validation, a sense of belonging and purpose etc.
You fell hook line and sinker for Esthar Villar’s philosophy. She is a woman. You are intellectually submitting to her whether you like it or not.
In regards to the “feeling good” etc thing, it is an overused argument. Many people were imprisoned for their beliefs or died for them.
In regards to the “ambigous”: Atheism is ambiguous in that it gives no “guide lines” or “answer” for anything. So if the truth is to be determined by which is less ambigious, atheism is losing big time. Just because we do not understand a religious text, does not make it ambiguous it just means we are.
In regards to the “control” portion of your argument. Religions clearly state the importance of self control. Athiesm, has no answer for this.
In regards to the “substantial amount of evidence” what would that be exactly? I would like to hear a rational answer or argument to be exact. Not about how you “feel”.
I suppose if you’re arguing whether it’s possible to be MGTOW without free will, then by definition no.
If you’re discussing holding an atheistic world view and a MGTOW world view, then by definition yes. They address two separate issues: Atheism the question of belief in God. MGTOW the decision whether or not to pursue marriage / LTRs.
As to whether or not we have free will I like the Hitchens paradox:
If we have free will, by definition we cannot be granted it. We can’t be given it. My [-audio-recording-distorted-] paradox states that ‘Of course we have free will, we have no choice.’ To say that it’s a gift is to negate the whole concept of free will on its face. So, if that isn’t self-evident, I can’t think of anything that would meet the definition of being self-evident.
Actually MGTOW is not limited to LTR. If it is, then many of us are confused as to what it means.
In regards to the Hitchens paradox. It is true. However that is under an assumption it was given. It requires an assumption. If man was created with it, than he still possesses free will.
If there are only natural laws (particles) then their is no free will. MGTOW is a philosophy dependent on personal sovereignty which requires free will. I covered this several times already. That was the point of this argument.
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. An atheist doesn’t necessarily have to subscribe to a deterministic world view and reject free will. He could believe in f~~~ing unicorns, it doesn’t matter.
I get it, the atheist believes in no God/gods/diety. Atheists believe in science. Science is the ability to observe. Athiests believe in man’s ability to observe, thereby elevating man to a “god-like” status.
No, unfortunately you still don’t get it. The first part is fine (as in a lack of belief in gods) but everything after that is not a necessity. Again, the only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Atheists can hold all kinds of beliefs beyond that, for example an atheist could reject science and believe in subjectivism. You’re confusing a specific type of atheist with the general term.
You fell hook line and sinker for Esthar Villar’s philosophy. She is a woman. You are intellectually submitting to her whether you like it or not.
Certainly not because I didn’t even know about her until half a year ago or so and held that view before that. Do you disagree that many blue pill men are deeply invested in the approval of women and submit to them almost as if they were goddesses?
Many people were imprisoned for their beliefs or died for them.
That only confirms how deeply invested they were in their beliefs.
In regards to the “ambigous”: Atheism is ambiguous in that it gives no “guide lines” or “answer” for anything. So if the truth is to be determined by which is less ambigious, atheism is losing big time.
Atheism is not an attempt to explain the world or guide people but a lack of belief in gods, that’s all.
In regards to the “control” portion of your argument. Religions clearly state the importance of self control. Athiesm, has no answer for this.
Again, atheism is a lack of belief in gods and that’s all it is. A lack of belief in gods doesn’t limit you in going your own way. Many religions however require their believers to submit to and worship one or multiple gods and follow principles that aren’t their own.
In regards to the “substantial amount of evidence” what would that be exactly? I would like to hear a rational answer or argument to be exact. Not about how you “feel”.
Logic or empirical evidence acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
Again, this is about truth not usefulness.
I still don’t understand why an atheist or a theist can’t be a mghow. Isn’t he going his own way no matter what belief system he chooses?
Anonymous5I have no god or religion, don’t know if it exists or not, don’t care if it exists or not. However I am not an athiest or agnostic. I simply am. I really do hate those f~~~ing labels. Why do I have to pick one? I just say f~~~ it and go my own way.
I’d say yes, as reasoning and logic leads to atheism, same as MGTOW. I’m personally agnostic, because I can’t say for sure either way. It’s possible there is a creator, doubt any religion got it right though, there are enough logical holes in every religion I’ve looked at. I don’t hate religion, but I can’t believe in a lie, no matter how comforting it is.
I saw this thread awhile back but I for got to comment on it.
John Doe to answer you question in the thread title “Is it possible to be atheist and MGTOW?” my answer to that is, not really.
Without debating morality or the ethics of any particular religion I am going to lump them all into one category because they all have the same end goal, social conditioning and control. Every religion eventually boils down to this key concept.
What is the key concept of MGTOW? Going your own way. This is where the two ideologies clash and are not compatible. Religion does not care what you think, all it wants is for you to follow party doctrine.
Well why is my answer to your question “not really” instead of “no”? Because even though MGTOW advocates going you own way, if you go a certain way you can not be a MGTOW. Example, if a man decided to go his own way and choose to get married he would no longer be a MGTOW, see, there is an inherent contradiction in MGTOW philosophy. Now the example I gave is a technicality but it helps illustrate my point, a contradiction exists.
Because of this contradiction that exists in both religion and MGTOW you can not say they are completely compatible or incompatible. Sorry if I did not really give a concrete answer to your question but I believe there really isn’t one
Oh yeah, so you know were my biases come from I am agnostic.
Wandersman:
<span style=”font-family: Thread-0000834c-Id-0000035a;”>The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods</span>. An atheist doesn’t necessarily have to subscribe to a deterministic world view and reject free will.
Free will is not a view, it either exists or does not exist. An atheist would be stuck to a deterministic world view.
Ronin X:
I still don’t understand why an atheist or a theist can’t be a mghow. Isn’t he going his own way no matter what belief system he chooses?
MGHOW is either viewed as a philosophy or a “movement”. If it is view as a philosophy only, it is bunk. However, it is a movement in regards to a corrupt society. The point of my thread was more philosophical in how atheism relates to free will. MGTOW movement is premised on free will.
Rainydaykid:
I’d say yes, as reasoning and logic leads to atheism, same as MGTOW. I’m personally agnostic
Either you are partly irrational or reasoning and logic does not lead one to atheism. In regards to your first point, I think I have proven using everyone’s responses that athiesm is a faith in whatever anyone sees fit to believe in and free will contradicts it. Somesay it is a lack of belief and in many respects it is. However, in many respects it isn’t because people naturally seek to believe regardless. Belief is what makes us human. If they do not believe in a Diety/dieties, then they believe in pretty much any and everything else.
Jambear:
Every religion eventually boils down to this key concept.
Actually they don’t, motivations are very different. Jews are not after 72 virgins. However I understand why you are trying to simplify for the sake of the argument.
In regards to the “party doctrine” MGTOW is also a party doctrine in many aspects. Either I follow the movement and go my own way or I do not. Just like religion, many people are here for different reasons.
if you go a certain way you can not be a MGTOW. Example, if a man decided to go his own way and choose to get married he would no longer be a MGTOW, see, there is an inherent contradiction in MGTOW philosophy.
Actually that is arguable, however I will run with your point for the sake of argument. Fair enough, he can’t get married. So now you contradicted yourself in saying MGTOW has no doctrine, but you just stated one. Second point, a man could not sleep with a woman at all either because he would be bowing to social influence or would be listening to his body rather than his mind. Also a man could not work under someone else because he would not be going his own way.
Sorry if I did not really give a concrete answer
Actually no need to apologize because you just stated that your baises were non-concrete. You did not contradict yourself at all.
Free will is not a view, it either exists or does not exist.
By “reject free will” I (obviously) meant disbelieve in free will.
An atheist would be stuck to a deterministic world view.
No, unless you want to change the definition of atheism. Did you read what you quoted? It explains why. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and anything beyond that is irrelevant. Can an atheist wear a hat? Yes. Can an atheist believe in free will? Sure. Can an atheist disbelieve in a deterministic world view? Yep. Why? Because the only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Why? Because the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in gods, nothing more.
I get it. I am simply saying that to make such a statement in no small matter but rather has a lot of repercussions. Beliefs such as these are not isolated, but inhabit every part of a human beings life in one way, shape, or form. To say otherwise is idiotic and foolish.
However then by default they would have to believe that many philosophers (Socrates, Aristotle, Etc.), political leaders (Washington, etc), scientists (Einstein, etc.) are wrong in much of their methodology because most of it related to either seeking or understanding a Diety/Dieties in some way shape or form.
You can argue all you want about little things but you are wasting your time because I am right.
I hate it when people try to equate believing in religion with “believing” in science. They are not on an equal footing at all. Science is based on exhaustive research, discovery, and facts. Religion has no facts to stand on. Every religion I have looked at has massive contradictions.
I’m not trying to bash people here, but comparing the rigors of science with some oldass 2000 year old scrolls and calling them equal is a load of utter horses~~~. It’s not a matter of faith or belief, it is a matter of what the evidence says. I don’t believe in anything that doesn’t have supporting evidence.
I hate it when people try to equate believing in religion with “believing” in science.
Actually they both can coexist quite comfortably.
They are not on an equal footing at all. Science is based on exhaustive research, discovery, and facts.
The majority of “science” pushed now is actually theory (evolution, big bang). However a lot of religions are willing to accept those without contradiction even though the manner these theories originated are contradictory.
Religion has no facts to stand on. Every religion I have looked at has massive contradictions.
The flood and various other events are accepted as fact, along with historical evidence to many battles etc.
In regards to the contradiction argument I can either agree or disagree with you. I will do both.
First if I was to agree in regards to the “contradictions” I would first have to be pointed out to what and where they were, because one man’s contradiction is actually a misinterpretation.
However for the sake of argument let us say their is a contradiction and because there is a contradiction you do not believe in that particular religion or philosophy. Well you would have to point to and ideology that has no contradiction. You would probably point to the scientific method, because that is what you were raised on. However the scientific method is not absolutely true in many respects, one of them being that it cannot be applied to itself. It does not follow its own rules because it is an abstract idea and according to the scientific method abstract ideas cannot be held in truth.
Good luck in finding a religion or philosophy or science that does not contradict itself in one manner or another.
I’m not trying to bash people here, but comparing the rigors of science with some oldass 2000 year old scrolls and calling them equal is a load of utter horses~~~. It’s not a matter of faith or belief, it is a matter of what the evidence says. I don’t believe in anything that doesn’t have supporting evidence
You missed the whole argument in regards to evidence, or it might be on the “christian/mgtow” thread. What exactly do you mean by equal? In what regards, because equality is not a defining factor in finding truth, nor is inequality. Science has not solve poverty or hunger or war. It actually made them far worse in many respects. However I don’t take it less seriously than I do religion. They both have a place and that is together.
There is a difference between scientific theory and the term “theory” in layman’s terms. I think that is where the confusion lies. Evolution pretty much has more scientific evidence across geology, physics, chemistry, ect, than any other thing I have seen.
As far as the flood goes, there was a terrible flood during that time period, but it was “local”, not worldwide. There isn’t enough water to cover the entire planet, including Mt Everest. Not to mention mile high tidal waves would crush anything on the surface. I have seen flood concepts on creationist websites, and they don’t hold up scientifically.
- 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
