(งಠ_ಠ)ง

@misanthropiccatboy

yes i am a leftist, yes i hate leftists. we exist. pro-atheist anti-binary anti-race anti-nationalism. (blog run by more than one person)

4,425 posts

tags for annoying discourse

#wizardcourse for wizard game discourse

#culturecourse for "cultural christianity" discourse

will add as i find more dead horses to beat

deadgenerations

I think we as atheists have probably swung too far towards tolerance and polite quiet. We should swing back towards publicly criticising the repression, hypocrisy, deception, untruths, bigotry, cruelty and nonsense of religions. even on Tumblr the Catholics have stopped feeling any sort of shame! the CATHOLICS!!!

The number of people on this website who respond to takes like "I think that the US should be militarily occupied and partitioned, and they should ban hamburgers" as if they were serious proposals for a neo-colonialist political programme and not a bunch of powerless people blowing-off steam at the most powerful nation in the world, which is currently a fascist dictatorship murdering people by the thousands.

javascript-official

I am sorry I am not very good with bussiness, is it good when the market looks like this.

"Keep it in the Ground" <- noted degrowther Donald Trump

no-sharks-on-the-sun

is that good

eightyonekilograms

I was feuding with jumblr bloggers before it was cool

misanthropiccatboy

very normal and not ethnonationalist thing to say

misanthropiccatboy

I didn't even remember that I posted this in June 2023, several months before October 7

deadgenerations

generally speaking if someone of a non-christian religion talks to you about how great and benevolent their religion is and how its really about peace and charity and cultural traditions and an important positive force in their culture you should imagine a white evangelical from america's south saying the same thing and give them the exact same level of credulity.

i couldnt find the video on tumblr so here it is. ice caught on camera murdering a US citizen

tomorrowillbeyou

when someone says "hey so lets not" you know theyre about to say the most annoying thing ever

I think comic acts as a good litmus test for your ability to actually Do Politics

like the test is whether you think the comic is right or dumb?

@yanklbonkl

Less about the comic and more your response: do you view the dynamic being shown as righteous or worrying? Do you treat politics as a Cool Kids Club or as an attempt to actually, you know, organize and make change?

I’m not sure what actions the left could take that wouldn’t be interpreted as a shove rightwards, though. Any amount of “Stop calling us subhuman” ends up with “You’re attacking me by telling me not to call you subhuman.”

misanthropiccatboy

This happens but not to the degree right-wingers want you to think it happens.

all my haters become traitors when i expose the national war crimes of success

#nikita khrushchev

Damn the perceived world sounds cool as hell

(blue is average of people’s estimate of percentage of population of which x is true, and red is the actual percentage)

misanthropiccatboy

I appreciate how it’s perceived jews are 30% of the population, muslims are 27% of the population, and atheists are 33% of the population. nobody wondered why christians were 10% huh

I honestly don’t even think this is as much “minorities being extremely visible”, and more just that the most people don’t understand fractions and statistics.

To most people, anything less than 10%, in any context, is basically “insignificant, not even worth your attention.”

The idea that Asians could be “only” 4% of the US population, and yet you still see a couple Asian people every day of your life, is deeply counterintuitive to most people. People don’t truly grasp that they pass by hundreds if not thousands of strangers every day and about 1 in 25 of them are going to be Asian.

Right now annual inflation is at a pretty high 9%, which is more than triple what the usual inflation rate is. But I guarantee if you asked the average person on the street what the inflation rate is right now, they’d think prices have gone up by anywhere from like 30-100%, because “9%” just doesn’t feel like a substantial or noticeable amount in their minds, even though it is.

facelessoldgargoyle

Obsessed with the fact that 92% of people live in NYC, California, and Texas

This reminds me of a different post I saw recently, wherein OP was - understandably - irked that so many professionals will characterize something that affects 1%-2% of the population as “a rare illness”. In actuality, if you’re in a lecture hall with 300 people, that means 3-6 of people who are in the same room with you. It means you might meet people with [disorder] every day, and not realize it.

reblogging for that last comment. I’ve been saying this for years

whitefangthefightingwolf

same thing with “only” 1% of the world is trans, and “only” 1% of the world is ace. I saw somewhere on here that if you do the math, there’s more trans people than there are Canadians. This is where the jokes about aces conquering Denmark/Belgium/the Netherlands come from. There are more aces than the populations of some countries.

albanyhypnomaster

First, I wish the chart was more completely visible.

Second, perhaps the first is why @facelessoldgargoyle makes his statement obviously using the BLUE (everyman median estimate) percentages rather than the ACTUAL stats which puts Cali, TX & NYC at only 24%, but still, nearly a quarter.

Third, stats can be dodgy enough but when it’s a clipped copy showing no headers or keys, but I’m going to take these as legit stats for the sake of argument.

Fourth, @misanthropiccatboy refers to Christians at 10%, but I don’t see ANY 10% listed, so they must have brought that stat with them.

With my disbelief suspended already to make an argument and support the post, I guess I’m just making these notes (to nitpick?) to be transparent of the discrepancies I see before reblogging both in support of the stark variation of expected and true, but the above comments.

Also, fifth, for the practical illustrations of the numbers. -D

misanthropiccatboy

33+27+30 = 90. 100-90 = 10.

misanthropiccatboy

hardcore christians may be taking away more american human rights every day and trying to install theocracy but nonreligious atheists are smug pretentious and insist that religion isn't real so who's to say who's worse

Both are.

For all the faults of the Christian movement atheism has more than a couple sins of its own.

Because a lot of atheists aren't atheist out of a conviction of epistemology or metaphysics. They don't find the proof of God lacking or find that his existence is contradictory. They simply just don't like what he says.

They don't like having to get up at 7:00 for church They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship. They don't like that it demands certain rules of conduct from them.

And when you realize that's the kind of atheist you're dealing with you're not dealing with something better than Christianity You're dealing with just a non answer to the answers of life.

And one that has its own worse versions of metaphysics and epistemology. Such as German idealism. And when you realize this you realize the question isn't atheism versus Christianity it's reason versus the irrational that is the fundamental premise not do you believe in God yay or nay It's reason or anti-reason because if the Christians were led by a thousand Thomas aquinases I'd find the world much more bearable than I do today but that's kind of the problem because they're all being led by Emmanuel Kant and Hegel. And it's not better on the atheistic side is kind of my point.

Which is my point we are dealing with a fundamentally irrational culture through and through. I can live with and deal with a Christian who believes reason is an absolute. I cannot deal with an atheist despite being one myself who's beliefs are irrational.

This is the true dichotomy I am pointing out whatever the faults of Christianity and the modern age it has one singular source Emanuel Kant who revitalized the waning Christianity and also created its secular counterpart. That is all.

misanthropiccatboy

They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship

wanting to support your gay friends and family members over an idiot made up ghost who lives in the sky who says GAYS BAD is the best reason ever to be an atheist. even if god is 100% real and everything in the bible is true you should still do this! it doesn't require metaphysical debate

See what I fucking mean?

I am an atheist. Not because I am bisexual, not because I don't want to church but because I hold the conviction that God isn't real. He is not.

And if he isn't real, why should I follow his rules?

Yours is "maybe he's real... maybe he isn't, I don't really know but why should I ever act on that fact"

That's not atheism, it's not "I don't think god exists or ever existed" its "I don't like what he said"

You can have arguments about what was said, but his existence does matter. What the exact meaning of certain passages, what does this actually apply to, what is the context of this, is this correct but at the end of the day, the answer if god exists matters.

If god says kill your son, who are you, to disagree that it is right? You don't believe in absolute reason, pure reason or reason itself. So, who are you, the uncertain to disagree?

If god says suffer for your faith by my hand, to test your faith, who are you to disagree? His own don went through it why can't you?

I consider these worse ethically than a simple ban on "man laying with man and woman laying with woman" child murder by a parent and suffering for being good by gods standards.

If god says have no other gods who are you, who by your own conclusion are uncertain to disagree that it is right?

This is why the metaphysical answers fucking matters, because it's why philosophy matters. Can you come to know reality through your reason, or can't you? Is reality an absolute, are your senses? Can you know things as they are or things as they appear to you?

These questions matter. Because philosophy matters. Because truth matters.

Edit: Because clarity is important, I will add. If God says, to do X, the question to ask before you even touch what God said to do and whether it is right or wrong, is does God exist?

Because either you are basing a moral frame on something that doesn't exist which would be wrong, or you are rejecting divine truth as easily as you would cosmic truth, such as truth, reason and reality. That matters in how it is ethical to respond to the commandment "God says to do x." Because otherwise you are not rejecting just God, but all truth, reason and reality.

misanthropiccatboy

Yours is "maybe he's real... maybe he isn't, I don't really know but why should I ever act on that fact" That's not atheism, it's not "I don't think god exists or ever existed" its "I don't like what he said"

I think you have reading comprehension problems along the lines of "difficulty understanding what a hypothetical is" or "difficulty understanding why someone might suggest something for the purposes of argument." my personal beliefs have never come into this.

but i can say that having a level of certainty in morality, and my reason and ability to know not only what is "right" and "wrong" but what kind of person i want to be and how i want to behave, means that even if i was proven wrong tomorrow and god came down from heaven and said "being gay is bad" i would say "you are wrong!"

Okay then, by what standard would you be able to say god is wrong?

A being which is beyond lovecraftian in scope, in essence the only true essential of the universe, the prime mover, and the god head and hand in one. A being which can have any nature it pleases as nothing constrains it. There is nothing it can be subject to and everything is subject to it. It is simply beyond morality, as it nature demands not even worship nor reason, and you plan to go up to a being like that and say "I am right and you are wrong"

And so I have to ask, by what standard do you know you are right or wrong? Furthermore how do you even know you have certainity, how do you gain it? And can you say that you can gain in on the scale of something which is infinite?

That is why I say, when you frame the debate on morality, you aren't actually addressing a question of god. You are addressing the followers of god, to which their answer will ultimately be what I have here. You are saying "I oppose you because you are immoral by my standards" but don't challenge the fundamentals of those followers. Their framework is different from yours and everything fllows from it.

Unless you challenge the fundamental, you have challanged nothing. Worse still it premits the exact same kind of secularization we saw with Kant. Now you have athiests coming to the same conclusions that the dark age Christains came to because they are operating and trying to understand the world with the same flawed and irrational epistemology.

And see the results. The claim that some men think and some do not based around various factors, class, birth, or special circumstance. The focus on suffering as the highest moral consideration. The irrational conclusions within a irrational framework without any prespective on reality. The acceptance of privations as virtue. That virtue must be compelled to be made at all. The hatred of life on earth. The equivication with man and animal. The worship of weakness as virtue and see any and all of the life giving virtues as sin.

And just look at it all, thats Christain philosophy some of the worst of it from the dark ages, and it is alive and thriving today.

So I say again, this isn't about Christains or athiests anymore, thats not the issue anymore. Because the sin of Christianity isn't different from the sins of athiesm anymore, its the irrationality. The belief that our reason is limited to understand the world. That reality is cut off from us. That reality is something because we can not know we can never be sure of its absolute nature.

That our reality is an absolute and that reason is our onyl tool to know it is contained in the simple proof of existence exists. And that is where the debate must be had if we are ever to throw off the shackles of the dark ages.

This is why I don't like the constant focus on morality when it comes to this debate. You aren't breaking the hold of the dark age religion, you are just demanding they join your secular camp.

misanthropiccatboy

A being which is beyond lovecraftian in scope, in essence the only true essential of the universe, the prime mover, and the god head and hand in one. A being which can have any nature it pleases as nothing constrains it. There is nothing it can be subject to and everything is subject to it. It is simply beyond morality, as it nature demands not even worship nor reason, and you plan to go up to a being like that and say "I am right and you are wrong"

well, yeah

(presumably if it was so awesome, all-knowing, etc, it would have a good argument for being right)

personally i am positive about whether god exists (he doesn't) but i'm not convinced that if these people believed that god didn't exist they would stop believing in what they believe in. people believe things for much more complicated reasons than just religion; morality and religion can't even be sectioned off from each other into categories that have no relationship or no connections (ie, culture). if someone is choosing not to do something wrong because, for example, another way of thinking has won out, i count that as a win. most people actually do this:

>god is all good

>i know [x] is good and [y] is bad

>god agrees [x] is good and [y] is bad

He wouldn't have a good argument. You are talking about an entity which is beyond time, space, matter and energy. Which is all seeing and all knowing. Which created the entire universe.

He would hold the absolute truth that he created and can shift and shape like playdough. A truth you think can serve you better than its maker and master. A truth you will try and claim and then use to call god immoral.

And you think, you will win?

Then you think that truth is nothing. Whether is god commanding you, or the convictions of your own mind if you find that source distasteful the conclusion is the same. Rejection and rebellion against truth itself.

But most people don't build the foundation of their mind on quick sand like you have. Their certainity of their beliefs is their certainity in god. Remove god from the equation, and all those other falsehoods fall away with it. They need the certainity of something to think as they do. They need values as standards and measures within themselves to know how to know. To value what they value. Certainity requires heirarchy of thought.

You have no certainity, no conceptualization of truth or its meaning and its why you can see absolute truth and say "not if I don't want it". Which is why I have been likely too rough with you, but I don't think needlessly.

Most people have a heirarchy of ideas, whether implicit or explicit, it is the source of certainity.

Mine is that proof I gave before, existence exists.

So I ask again by what standard are you certain? By what standard do you know? You do need one. Not just in matters of philosophy in questions of god but in life. So where is your standard, what is your certainity?

misanthropiccatboy

did you miss the part where i said that i'm certain god doesn't exist or do you just enjoy ranting

misanthropiccatboy

hardcore christians may be taking away more american human rights every day and trying to install theocracy but nonreligious atheists are smug pretentious and insist that religion isn't real so who's to say who's worse

Both are.

For all the faults of the Christian movement atheism has more than a couple sins of its own.

Because a lot of atheists aren't atheist out of a conviction of epistemology or metaphysics. They don't find the proof of God lacking or find that his existence is contradictory. They simply just don't like what he says.

They don't like having to get up at 7:00 for church They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship. They don't like that it demands certain rules of conduct from them.

And when you realize that's the kind of atheist you're dealing with you're not dealing with something better than Christianity You're dealing with just a non answer to the answers of life.

And one that has its own worse versions of metaphysics and epistemology. Such as German idealism. And when you realize this you realize the question isn't atheism versus Christianity it's reason versus the irrational that is the fundamental premise not do you believe in God yay or nay It's reason or anti-reason because if the Christians were led by a thousand Thomas aquinases I'd find the world much more bearable than I do today but that's kind of the problem because they're all being led by Emmanuel Kant and Hegel. And it's not better on the atheistic side is kind of my point.

Which is my point we are dealing with a fundamentally irrational culture through and through. I can live with and deal with a Christian who believes reason is an absolute. I cannot deal with an atheist despite being one myself who's beliefs are irrational.

This is the true dichotomy I am pointing out whatever the faults of Christianity and the modern age it has one singular source Emanuel Kant who revitalized the waning Christianity and also created its secular counterpart. That is all.

misanthropiccatboy

They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship

wanting to support your gay friends and family members over an idiot made up ghost who lives in the sky who says GAYS BAD is the best reason ever to be an atheist. even if god is 100% real and everything in the bible is true you should still do this! it doesn't require metaphysical debate

See what I fucking mean?

I am an atheist. Not because I am bisexual, not because I don't want to church but because I hold the conviction that God isn't real. He is not.

And if he isn't real, why should I follow his rules?

Yours is "maybe he's real... maybe he isn't, I don't really know but why should I ever act on that fact"

That's not atheism, it's not "I don't think god exists or ever existed" its "I don't like what he said"

You can have arguments about what was said, but his existence does matter. What the exact meaning of certain passages, what does this actually apply to, what is the context of this, is this correct but at the end of the day, the answer if god exists matters.

If god says kill your son, who are you, to disagree that it is right? You don't believe in absolute reason, pure reason or reason itself. So, who are you, the uncertain to disagree?

If god says suffer for your faith by my hand, to test your faith, who are you to disagree? His own don went through it why can't you?

I consider these worse ethically than a simple ban on "man laying with man and woman laying with woman" child murder by a parent and suffering for being good by gods standards.

If god says have no other gods who are you, who by your own conclusion are uncertain to disagree that it is right?

This is why the metaphysical answers fucking matters, because it's why philosophy matters. Can you come to know reality through your reason, or can't you? Is reality an absolute, are your senses? Can you know things as they are or things as they appear to you?

These questions matter. Because philosophy matters. Because truth matters.

Edit: Because clarity is important, I will add. If God says, to do X, the question to ask before you even touch what God said to do and whether it is right or wrong, is does God exist?

Because either you are basing a moral frame on something that doesn't exist which would be wrong, or you are rejecting divine truth as easily as you would cosmic truth, such as truth, reason and reality. That matters in how it is ethical to respond to the commandment "God says to do x." Because otherwise you are not rejecting just God, but all truth, reason and reality.

misanthropiccatboy

Yours is "maybe he's real... maybe he isn't, I don't really know but why should I ever act on that fact" That's not atheism, it's not "I don't think god exists or ever existed" its "I don't like what he said"

I think you have reading comprehension problems along the lines of "difficulty understanding what a hypothetical is" or "difficulty understanding why someone might suggest something for the purposes of argument." my personal beliefs have never come into this.

but i can say that having a level of certainty in morality, and my reason and ability to know not only what is "right" and "wrong" but what kind of person i want to be and how i want to behave, means that even if i was proven wrong tomorrow and god came down from heaven and said "being gay is bad" i would say "you are wrong!"

Okay then, by what standard would you be able to say god is wrong?

A being which is beyond lovecraftian in scope, in essence the only true essential of the universe, the prime mover, and the god head and hand in one. A being which can have any nature it pleases as nothing constrains it. There is nothing it can be subject to and everything is subject to it. It is simply beyond morality, as it nature demands not even worship nor reason, and you plan to go up to a being like that and say "I am right and you are wrong"

And so I have to ask, by what standard do you know you are right or wrong? Furthermore how do you even know you have certainity, how do you gain it? And can you say that you can gain in on the scale of something which is infinite?

That is why I say, when you frame the debate on morality, you aren't actually addressing a question of god. You are addressing the followers of god, to which their answer will ultimately be what I have here. You are saying "I oppose you because you are immoral by my standards" but don't challenge the fundamentals of those followers. Their framework is different from yours and everything fllows from it.

Unless you challenge the fundamental, you have challanged nothing. Worse still it premits the exact same kind of secularization we saw with Kant. Now you have athiests coming to the same conclusions that the dark age Christains came to because they are operating and trying to understand the world with the same flawed and irrational epistemology.

And see the results. The claim that some men think and some do not based around various factors, class, birth, or special circumstance. The focus on suffering as the highest moral consideration. The irrational conclusions within a irrational framework without any prespective on reality. The acceptance of privations as virtue. That virtue must be compelled to be made at all. The hatred of life on earth. The equivication with man and animal. The worship of weakness as virtue and see any and all of the life giving virtues as sin.

And just look at it all, thats Christain philosophy some of the worst of it from the dark ages, and it is alive and thriving today.

So I say again, this isn't about Christains or athiests anymore, thats not the issue anymore. Because the sin of Christianity isn't different from the sins of athiesm anymore, its the irrationality. The belief that our reason is limited to understand the world. That reality is cut off from us. That reality is something because we can not know we can never be sure of its absolute nature.

That our reality is an absolute and that reason is our onyl tool to know it is contained in the simple proof of existence exists. And that is where the debate must be had if we are ever to throw off the shackles of the dark ages.

This is why I don't like the constant focus on morality when it comes to this debate. You aren't breaking the hold of the dark age religion, you are just demanding they join your secular camp.

misanthropiccatboy

A being which is beyond lovecraftian in scope, in essence the only true essential of the universe, the prime mover, and the god head and hand in one. A being which can have any nature it pleases as nothing constrains it. There is nothing it can be subject to and everything is subject to it. It is simply beyond morality, as it nature demands not even worship nor reason, and you plan to go up to a being like that and say "I am right and you are wrong"

well, yeah

(presumably if it was so awesome, all-knowing, etc, it would have a good argument for being right)

personally i am positive about whether god exists (he doesn't) but i'm not convinced that if these people believed that god didn't exist they would stop believing in what they believe in. people believe things for much more complicated reasons than just religion; morality and religion can't even be sectioned off from each other into categories that have no relationship or no connections (ie, culture). if someone is choosing not to do something wrong because, for example, another way of thinking has won out, i count that as a win. most people actually do this:

>god is all good

>i know [x] is good and [y] is bad

>god agrees [x] is good and [y] is bad

misanthropiccatboy

hardcore christians may be taking away more american human rights every day and trying to install theocracy but nonreligious atheists are smug pretentious and insist that religion isn't real so who's to say who's worse

Both are.

For all the faults of the Christian movement atheism has more than a couple sins of its own.

Because a lot of atheists aren't atheist out of a conviction of epistemology or metaphysics. They don't find the proof of God lacking or find that his existence is contradictory. They simply just don't like what he says.

They don't like having to get up at 7:00 for church They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship. They don't like that it demands certain rules of conduct from them.

And when you realize that's the kind of atheist you're dealing with you're not dealing with something better than Christianity You're dealing with just a non answer to the answers of life.

And one that has its own worse versions of metaphysics and epistemology. Such as German idealism. And when you realize this you realize the question isn't atheism versus Christianity it's reason versus the irrational that is the fundamental premise not do you believe in God yay or nay It's reason or anti-reason because if the Christians were led by a thousand Thomas aquinases I'd find the world much more bearable than I do today but that's kind of the problem because they're all being led by Emmanuel Kant and Hegel. And it's not better on the atheistic side is kind of my point.

Which is my point we are dealing with a fundamentally irrational culture through and through. I can live with and deal with a Christian who believes reason is an absolute. I cannot deal with an atheist despite being one myself who's beliefs are irrational.

This is the true dichotomy I am pointing out whatever the faults of Christianity and the modern age it has one singular source Emanuel Kant who revitalized the waning Christianity and also created its secular counterpart. That is all.

misanthropiccatboy

They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship

wanting to support your gay friends and family members over an idiot made up ghost who lives in the sky who says GAYS BAD is the best reason ever to be an atheist. even if god is 100% real and everything in the bible is true you should still do this! it doesn't require metaphysical debate

See what I fucking mean?

I am an atheist. Not because I am bisexual, not because I don't want to church but because I hold the conviction that God isn't real. He is not.

And if he isn't real, why should I follow his rules?

Yours is "maybe he's real... maybe he isn't, I don't really know but why should I ever act on that fact"

That's not atheism, it's not "I don't think god exists or ever existed" its "I don't like what he said"

You can have arguments about what was said, but his existence does matter. What the exact meaning of certain passages, what does this actually apply to, what is the context of this, is this correct but at the end of the day, the answer if god exists matters.

If god says kill your son, who are you, to disagree that it is right? You don't believe in absolute reason, pure reason or reason itself. So, who are you, the uncertain to disagree?

If god says suffer for your faith by my hand, to test your faith, who are you to disagree? His own don went through it why can't you?

I consider these worse ethically than a simple ban on "man laying with man and woman laying with woman" child murder by a parent and suffering for being good by gods standards.

If god says have no other gods who are you, who by your own conclusion are uncertain to disagree that it is right?

This is why the metaphysical answers fucking matters, because it's why philosophy matters. Can you come to know reality through your reason, or can't you? Is reality an absolute, are your senses? Can you know things as they are or things as they appear to you?

These questions matter. Because philosophy matters. Because truth matters.

Edit: Because clarity is important, I will add. If God says, to do X, the question to ask before you even touch what God said to do and whether it is right or wrong, is does God exist?

Because either you are basing a moral frame on something that doesn't exist which would be wrong, or you are rejecting divine truth as easily as you would cosmic truth, such as truth, reason and reality. That matters in how it is ethical to respond to the commandment "God says to do x." Because otherwise you are not rejecting just God, but all truth, reason and reality.

misanthropiccatboy

Yours is "maybe he's real... maybe he isn't, I don't really know but why should I ever act on that fact" That's not atheism, it's not "I don't think god exists or ever existed" its "I don't like what he said"

I think you have reading comprehension problems along the lines of "difficulty understanding what a hypothetical is" or "difficulty understanding why someone might suggest something for the purposes of argument." my personal beliefs have never come into this.

but i can say that having a level of certainty in morality, and my reason and ability to know not only what is "right" and "wrong" but what kind of person i want to be and how i want to behave, means that even if i was proven wrong tomorrow and god came down from heaven and said "being gay is bad" i would say "you are wrong!"

misanthropiccatboy

hardcore christians may be taking away more american human rights every day and trying to install theocracy but nonreligious atheists are smug pretentious and insist that religion isn't real so who's to say who's worse

Both are.

For all the faults of the Christian movement atheism has more than a couple sins of its own.

Because a lot of atheists aren't atheist out of a conviction of epistemology or metaphysics. They don't find the proof of God lacking or find that his existence is contradictory. They simply just don't like what he says.

They don't like having to get up at 7:00 for church They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship. They don't like that it demands certain rules of conduct from them.

And when you realize that's the kind of atheist you're dealing with you're not dealing with something better than Christianity You're dealing with just a non answer to the answers of life.

And one that has its own worse versions of metaphysics and epistemology. Such as German idealism. And when you realize this you realize the question isn't atheism versus Christianity it's reason versus the irrational that is the fundamental premise not do you believe in God yay or nay It's reason or anti-reason because if the Christians were led by a thousand Thomas aquinases I'd find the world much more bearable than I do today but that's kind of the problem because they're all being led by Emmanuel Kant and Hegel. And it's not better on the atheistic side is kind of my point.

Which is my point we are dealing with a fundamentally irrational culture through and through. I can live with and deal with a Christian who believes reason is an absolute. I cannot deal with an atheist despite being one myself who's beliefs are irrational.

This is the true dichotomy I am pointing out whatever the faults of Christianity and the modern age it has one singular source Emanuel Kant who revitalized the waning Christianity and also created its secular counterpart. That is all.

misanthropiccatboy

They don't like that they can't engage in a homosexual relationship or be apathetic or supportive of people who are in a homosexual relationship

wanting to support your gay friends and family members over an idiot made up ghost who lives in the sky who says GAYS BAD is the best reason ever to be an atheist. even if god is 100% real and everything in the bible is true you should still do this! it doesn't require metaphysical debate

(งಠ_ಠ)ง @misanthropiccatboy - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag