Tag Archives: Atheism

Placebo (After the Storm)

28 Apr

I once was at a party,
with some stuffy upperclass bastards.
They talked nonsense and BS,
until a new age wench
said something post-modern
to a besserwisser who went kind of unhinged.

The debate went on for quite some time,
until I decided to speak my mind.
It was time to take the douchebag to school.
Show that he was just as much a fool.
So when he said

“Do you know what they call alternative medicine
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”

Followed by an academic laugh,
that could as well have been a fart.
I just had to say

“So how then, may I ask,
do you explain placebo?
Oh I guess that was never
addressed in Scooby Doo.
How can medicine be proven to work,
if everyone agrees it doesn’t from the start?
Alternative medicine, is just that.
An alternative.
You dont have to take it.
I dont care.
But you see,
you now have been antagonizing this women
for quite some time.

And this posh doctor and his wife
dont seem to mind.
Well I do, you see,
because she may be
right in saying:

“Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist.”
You kind of proven her point,
when attacking her with such force.
And without any sign of remorse.

How could you possibly say,
that pretending to talk to the dead,
is more of a bastard move
than you treating this obvious fool
as a tool
for you to rant on
with your so called “skeptical” gum?
How can you have more respect for humanity,
when you treat people with such cruelty
just because they disagree?

You see,
I think that is the real irony.
That you so called “humanists”,
just pore out this clear misanthropy.
You know I take my flu-shots,
but why is it important to you
who does and who does not?

Why is it okay for you to degrade people of other belief,
but when you are attacked you claim free-speech.
You say you want freedom from religion,
I say you want freedom to dominate.
To proselyte,
to interrogate.
To ridicule those of different values and minds.
Claim them insane.
Refusing to be treated the same.

Treating others with contempt.
But have you shown your adapt?
Have you given any good argument for anything?

Who cares if she believes in astrology?
What harm can it possibly be?
Have you added anything but opinion yourself?”

Now he probably wont mention me,
if he ever retells this story
His name was Tim Minchin I think.
He was a poet or something like it.
At least not a scientist.
Or anyone else with any merit.

But I am sure he thinks himself to be,
an important man on the right side of history.
Some visionary.
Just because he hates tattoos of fairies.

Blog 2.0 – Not a upperclass bastard.

More atheist debate – Its easter after all!

14 Apr

Sooo… Its easter. The time we acknowledge (celebrate has always seem strange to me) that Jesus died for our sins. Nice!

So in acknowledgement of that I want to share a debate I had with some atheists again.  It all started here —> On the youtube video: Why Jordan Peterson Still Believes In God

Uten navn

I wrote:

Andy Ace 3 months ago (edited)
“It´s strange to me how some of the most rational, intelligent people can be religious.” That statement says more about you than it does about religious people.

If I were to say “It´s strange to me how some of the most rational, intelligent people can be atheist/liberal/concervative/whatnot” it would show lack of humility and understanding that people may have different values and life experiences and does not equal “not being smart” or “irrational”.

First step to knowledge is to understand that people of different belief is not stupid or bad, they are just different (and wrong 😉

3 months later and the debate is still going on 😉

First

 

I decided to copy-paste it and add some screengrabs so we can study the average atheist debate skills and understanding of themselves and how much “new” they add to the debate. They really dont. Also to take a gander at what google and youtube think is spam/censorship worthy.

 

Here it is —>


 

Mouthy Buddha 3 months ago
Andy Ace

I respectfully disagree. I think Atheism and intelligence go hand and hand. And I also think that deeply religious people do not value reason, or logic, or at the very least, they do not hold these intellectual qualities to high esteem.

So I stand by the claim.

Andy Ace3 months ago (edited)
Then most big thinkers 50-60 years back were “irrational”. The fact is that atheism is a cultural shift. There aren´t more intelligent people now, then back then, even though more and more people are becoming atheist. In fact, most outspoken atheist I have met online have known very little about anything.

The reason why they are becoming atheist is not because “science shows us it”. Science is as agnostic/irreligious as it always has been. As Peterson says himself “Science is not religious truth”, it about what can be observed. We have known of evolution for many years, its only the last 20 years that has been seen as “evidence” of there not being a God.

The growing number of “atheist awakenings” is not because of the body of evidence or rationality increasing. We are just as irrational as we have always been. The reason is pop-culture and political agendas. We are bombarded with anti-religious ideas everyday, and that is the reason why people are “waking up”. I have seen the change with my own eyes. I lived in a country where irreligious christianity was the norm, now it is patronizing atheism. In Norway I think it was mostly because of politics though and US pop-culture.

 

Uten navn 7

Mouthy Buddha 3 months ago
Andy Ace

I disagree again. Pop culture and political agendas do sway the public, but you have left out a major development which, in my view, is the most relevant requisite for atheism – science.

And I never said stupid, or dumb. But someone who values reason and logic. And seeing as Peterson is an intellectual giant, who is a scientist who obviously values arriving at a truth, it baffles me as to why he would still find truths in religious faith.

I am not saying that he is wrong for feeling this way, or else I wouldn’t have uploaded the video. But it did shock me. I also debated for minutes regarding the exact words you have issue with, as my intention is never to offend, but I realized that this is truly how I feel, and I would rather be honest with myself, and my channel, than pander to religious people that I disagree with.

Andy Ace 3 months ago
you say
“Pop culture and political agendas do sway the public, but you have left out a major development which, in my view, is the most relevant requisite for atheism – science. “

I addressed that. It is a belief in atheism that they are on “science side”. That is false. First of, that would mean that all scientists are atheists. That was not the norm 50 years ago. I have seen youtube lists of “Top 10 atheist thinkers” and often they even add thinkers that are not atheist. I.e Einstein. Although he has said many strange things on it, I saw an hour long BBC documentary about how Einstein tried to prove there was a God. It was called “Einsteins Unfinished Symphony”. Either that documentary was lying, or Einstein was not an atheist.

I also listened to Hitchens talk about 1984. My favorite book and also my favorite atheist. He said that 1984 wasnt really criticizing communism, but religion. This was fascinating because Orwell was NOT atheist, but also because Hitchen interpretation said more about him, then the book or 1984.

This comes up again and again. This belief that all great thinkers are atheists but that is not so. Its only the last 20-30 years or so that “great thinkers” has been outspooken atheists. Also many of them havent really been all that much of scientist anyways. Often closer to educators. “Dumbing down” science for the masses. They left science to follow their true calling. Proselyting atheism (i.e biologist Dawkins).

you say
“And I never said stupid, or dumb.”

Yes I changed it to “irrational” to not add words not used. Although these things arent water and oil 😉

You say
“And seeing as Peterson is an intellectual giant, who is a scientist who obviously values arriving at a truth, it baffles me as to why he would still find truths in religious faith. ”

I would guess it comes to what you have read and what you know. Have you read C.G. Jung? The undiscovered self? IT deals with theism and atheism, among other things. He said “You can take away a man’s gods, but only to give him others in return.”

There is a quote I read, but I can not seem to find again. It went “When I first started reading philosophy I became an atheist, when I kept reading I became a theist again”. I dont know who said it and where it came from. But it has a valid point. Theism vs atheism is not a scientific debate. Its a philosophical one. It has to do with metaphysics. Its not irrational to believe that we were created.

you say
” I also debated for minutes regarding the exact words you have issue with, as my intention is never to offend, but I realized that this is truly how I feel, and I would rather be honest with myself, and my channel, than pander to religious people that I disagree with.”

I am not offended. I just restated what you said. Sometimes seeing in writing what was said, can make you see what you truly said. I hope you made these videos to communicate, not preach? Thus when I saw your video and heard that phrase I thought it interessting to restate it to point out its interessting undertones. But that was addressed in my original comment.

I am not offended by atheists, or their ideas. As most theist, I have been atheist at times. I understand perfectly your side, and would not call it “irrational” or anything else. That being said, I think atheism is wrong, and I also dislike patronizing attitudes that many atheists have. This does not apply to you or your video. This is a general issue. Fortunatly for me and other theists, many atheists now have become anti-feminists now and that seems to be their holy cow now, to bash them. So we have peace 😉

scythermantis 2 months ago
Great post!
For a theist great thinker, John Lennox is worth checking out as well.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+scythermantis Ill check him out. Found a youtube video about him now 🙂

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Paul Seli
You say
“Forgive the self-promotion Andy Ace, but, respectfully, Mouthy Buddha is correct in noting that theists tend to be less rational/analytic than theists.”

Why is this self-promotion? If you disagree you disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

I read the abstract to this findings, but it was hard to understand how they came around to this. I like it better when the science paper give both the OBJECTIVE, METHOD, RESULTS and CONCLUSION in the abstract.
Like here: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

The abstract to your paper was just “we assumed and this is what we found”. I wont pay money to read the entire thing.

Analytical thinking may go beyond what they define as analytical. To put it in a cliché, “some may not see the forest for all the threes”.

But yeah, I would have liked it if they defined what they think is “analytical” and how they decided to test out this. Let´s say analytical is “finding patterns” then they may love the basic IQ test with those 3 lines of patterns that are suppose to add up to a 9th pattern. I have done that one, and didnt much care for it. I never understood the reason for that. What did it test? Who decided the logic behind those patterns? What did that prove? Does analytical thinking include thinking in abstracts?

To bring in a science study I found interessting.

Why Are High-Functioning Autistics More Likely to Be Atheists or Agnostics?
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2011/09/26/why-are-high-functioning-autistics-more-likely-to-be-atheists-or-agnostics/

I think asberger´s people are known for their visually, concrete and provable needs. But they may love puzzles and logical tests. To be honest most atheists I know and have debated have not shown much interest in analysis and have high level of confirmation bias.

Take the most recent atheist debate I have had. I wrote a long argument, and he replied with “Nice dude, this must be a world record: “Most words used to form a strawman arguement” End.

It doesnt really try to grasp the arguments, and see why they disagree. Just a declaration of disprovement.

Conclusion: Perhaps its just confirmation bias, but that study doesnt ring true to me.

I stand by my original post that to say “It surprised me that a christian can be rational/intelligent/whatever” still shows bias from the atheist, more than the Christian. 2000 year of history has brought many great Christian thinkers and artists. Its only been 20-30 years where atheism has been seen as the “only rational stand”.

Andy Ace 2 months ago (edited)
+Paul Seli
you say
“(1) It is self-promotion because I am an author on the article that I sent to you (in which it is demonstrated that theists tend to be less analytical than atheists).”

Interesting. I did think that, that could be the reason. I even looked for you name, but didnt see it. Now I do see it.

you say
“(2) To demonstrate this, we obtained people’s views on religion (i.e., whether they are theists or atheists), and then administered an IQ test, along with the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), which has been validated as a measure of people’s propensity to think analytically (to produce correct responses to the test items, one has to override an intuitive response and think carefully about the answer).”

Is the IQ test block/logic understanding or is it a more broad test (WAIS-III)?

I can say that I did the CRT test as described on wikipedia and I failed. The first question I said 10 cent. The second 1 minute. The third I didnt bother with cuz I read the answer before taking it. I did understand why I was wrong when I read the answers though. They are trick questions though. The point of trick questions is to trick you.

It was math questions and I hate math. I remeber a co-worker said to me how can it be 25% up but only 20% down. And it took me a long time to understand that as my mind is not wired for math.

My family wanted me to take the hard science route. Knowing my interests I took the humanities. I knew that for me to study math, physics and biology would fail as my interest was low which would mean that I would not work hard at it, but at the same time I was not a natural at it so that would mean I would have to work hard at it, which I knew I wouldnt. But did you see there was analysis in this to? Just not based on math.

Its just like with psychology. I love psychology and have read books on it. But the parts of the books about the biology (neurology, endocrinology etc.) are things I find far less interesting than the human to human (philosophical and less testable) areas of psychology.

Point being: Although I do not have a “math mind” (I do understand it at the most average level) I do not care for it, but still consider myself to be analytical.

you say
“(3) If your argument is that we cannot pin down what “analyticity” means, even when using validated tests with convergent validity (i.e., the CRT correlates well with other purported measures of analyticity), then we cannot debate an exceptionally large number of things. If this is really your view, then it would be best to refrain from engaging in debate with anyone over any natural constructs, such as “intelligence,” “love,” “hope,” “fear,” “analyticity,” “boredom,” “attention,” and so forth, because you and/or your opponent could always claim ignorance about what the construct actually means, whether it’s being measured fully and properly, and so forth. As such, you will invariably draw the conclusion that you simply “cannot know”: a conclusion that ought to preclude meaningful discussion about a host of topics. ”

You may have missunderstood me. I think its important to DEFINE what analytical is in a paper looking for analytical mentalities. I have been to university to and I always learnd that when using terminologies one should define it and preferably have some source on it.

I.e “We define analytical as a person who [does this and that] (Mindwell and Misc, 2011, p201)”

or

“Love is just a biological illusjon caused by to much hormons. “[Its] just a miserably lie””(Morrissey, 1983).

If I then disagree with the definition, then I may disagree with the entire findings. And that should be a valid argument if I have basis for thinking the definition to broad or to narrow.

(to be continued)

Andy Ace 2 months ago (edited)
+Paul Seli
You say
(4) I’m generally interested by the Autism/Asperger’s topic, but the link that you’ve provided is a link to an opinion piece, not an empirical study. Nonetheless, even if there were an empirical study on the topic, this would not somehow necessitate that religious people are therefore more analytic. I don’t see the link here. In the same way, analytic individuals might be more creative, and perhaps autistic individuals are also more likely to be creative, but this doesn’t necessitate that autistic individuals are therefore also more analytic.
These are correlational results, and hence, such conclusions cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, I will read the article you sent me, as I think it’s an interesting topic (thanks for sharing).

I agree. But it may be an indicator of what kinds of minds think what kinds of things beyond the “analytical”. There may be different things to analyse. Feelings.

Take for instance the “God of the gap” argument. That is something many atheists laugh at. Why? It means that there is an X and so some people fill that X with 0 (there is not God) and some with 1 (there is a God). These things may go beyond logic. It may have an emotional level. And emotions are a part of us. We are given it for a reason, be it from nature or God. To completely disregard emotions as evidence of X may be false.

you say
“(5) Although you’ve not encountered many atheists who have shown interest in analytic thinking, the data suggest that your experience is simply not reflective of the general population. In addition to the study that I sent you, my co-authors have conducted numerous other studies demonstrating the same effect, time and time again (i.e., theists are less analytic on numerous different tasks, and this is with gigantic samples of thousands of people, as opposed to the handful of people you’ve met). That said, some atheists are certainly not very analytic at all (and some theists are very analytic), and maybe you’ve just been exposed to a disproportionate number of these non-analytic atheists (this seems likely). Remember that the finding isn’t that ALL atheists are more analytic, but rather, that on the whole, atheists score higher on measures of analyticity (and IQ) than theists.”

I wont be the guy who says “YOUR DATA IS FALSE”. I havent looked at it. I am also aware that my experience is anecdotal. But anecdotal can be the start of an hypothesis. I do not have the resources or interest to really test it out, but I can draw an hypothesis of it. Which I have.

The hypothesis are:
1) Atheism is not based on rational thinking, but a cultural shift.

2) Atheism in its most common form is religious. (Jung; 1957)

In the end, the question of atheism vs theism, is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one (metaphysics aka “before physics”).

A religious atheist strategy now is to try to tie science and atheism together. A strategy I find very destructive. For one it crates a false dichotomy, and secondly it may divert theist from joining in, even though they may have interessting perspective and knowledge to make interesting hypothesis and findings.

A documentary about this, that I saw was called “Expelled: No intelligence allowed”. I found it a biased documentary, as most documentaries, but it gave food for though. What gave me even more food for thought was reading on the IMDB page how atheists had hijacked the page to “correct” the arguments of the documentary. I started a thread about it on the movie page and I was overwelmed with atheist denying that there was any hijacking (then why were they there?) and then the forum thread was removed.

PS: I will take a look at the data since you sent it to me. Thanks 🙂

shadowdawg04 2 months ago
Mouthy – “I think Atheism and intelligence go hand in hand” a statement that taken at face value, self evidently false. The very fact the you put a premium on ‘I think’ & ‘I also think’ is indicative of a person looking for facts to support their assertions.

Intelligence is not a wholly own subsidiary of the atheist – your trying to win the argument by an self-pronounced superiority. History and evidence is not on your side – merely wanting a thing to be true does not make it so. History is not what we like or what we dislike, it is what actually was, and perhaps, what still is.

shadowdawg04 2 months ago
Any Ace – “theists TEND to be less rational/analytic than atheist.” My, my how very scientific and fact based your generalization is!

Your condescension is illuminating …. however,

One might say that atheist tend to be more cold blooded and callous toward their fellow human beings – it wasn’t peasant farmers who killed 30 million in the Soviet Union, or 100 million under Mao, nor 45 million under the Pol Pot regime. Castro was he a theist or an atheist? He actually stated this, so there is no ambiguity here.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+shadowdawg04 I never said that. I was pro-theist. I may have quoted another guy who removed his comments.

TheOlzee 2 months ago
Not really about how intelligent you but how honest you can be with yourself which often takes courage so both unrelated to intelligence. Although i know what you mean.

Hurling Camogie 2 months ago
Andy Ace Leftist shaming tactics? Really? You lost this debate before you started. It never surprises me that people who initially appear to be intelligent turn out not to be so, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. You are definitely one of those people.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Hurling Camogie You wrote “shaming tactics” and I thought: “shaming tactics? That doesnt sound like something I would write.” So I searched the thread and I can not see where I wrote that.

Anjelus 2 months ago
+Andy Ace: That quote you paraphrased, “When I first started reading philosophy I became an atheist, when I kept reading I became a theist again,” is from Francis Bacon. Also, you were completely right in this debate and Mouthy Buddha was wrong.

Internet Contrarian 2 months ago
Well no, not true. Many religious people do argue completely ridiculous beliefs and claims, its rational to assume MOST of them offer these weak arguments. Since well… most of them do.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Anjelus Thank you! I found it! Yes! Thank you! The quote was “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” It has driven me nuts not finding it.

+The Fifth Antitheist
you say
“Many religious people do argue completely ridiculous beliefs and claims”

This is the pop-culture I was talking about. The many memes. When a christian is portrayed in movies he is often seen as suspect, ignorant and bigoted.

Historically the greatest thinkers were theist or christian in some way. That may have been because of the zeitgeist. But a zeitgeist (be it theist or atheist) does not dictate right or wrong. The greatest thinkers have been theist up until the last 20 years. Kant, Descartes, Jung, Orwell, Einstein.

So its NOT “rational to assume MOST of them offer these weak arguments” its ignorant to assume that.

Devon Yretich 2 months ago
Andy Ace but these men hardly dealt in the subject of religion and einstin wasnt a christian. Newton was so religious though that he tries to predict the end of the world fron the bible. It was never sonething they were forced to confront, in some cases it was taboo. The equivocation between thinker of both times doesnt work. its also an appeal to power

Devon Yretich 2 months ago
Andy Ace also that quote means nothing. it proves nothing and is therefore pointless in the context of this arguement.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
Devon Yretich I dont think I said Einstein was a christian. I called him a theist, most likely. Here is a question for you: Why do YOU read christian where I write theist? It may something about you.

As for the quote: Its a very important and poingiant (did I spell that right?) quote.

Anjelus 2 months ago (edited)
+Andy, a more updated version of Bacon’s is physicist Werner Heisenberg’s “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Also, few people in general have even the slightest inkling of classical theism, so they attribute everything “theism” to Christianity because Christianity is all they know. Einstein was a theist but not a Christian, you’re quite right. Of all modern religions, Christianity is the one whose theology drives most from classical theism, but the two have been distinct entities for 2500 years and will presumably remain so.

p.s. it’s ‘poignant’ :-p

Devon Yretich 2 months ago
+Andy Ace sorry for that mistake. The quote means nothing because it is unsustansiated. It proves nothing. I can say the samethinh backwords and it would be still as valid.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Anjelus Yes. Christianity is a religion or philosophy of theism, but theism is not the same as christianity. There are many types of theism. I dont know what kind Einstein was, and he was very unclear and often talked against himself. What I do know is that BBC made a documentary about how Einstein dedicated the last part of his life to mathematically prove there was a God. That makes him a theist in my mind.

I consider myself a irreligious philosophical christian. I dont go to church, I dont read the bible that much, and I dont follow dogma. But I do respect Christian values and traditions. When I debate atheists I never debate religion, I always debate metaphysics. There is no point debating if Christianity makes sense or if its true if one cant agree on the basic idea that there is a God.

But what´s funny is that all atheists want to debate is religion and how stupid the bible is.

+Devon Yretich

Its fine that you´re sorry, but why did you assume I meant Christian when I wrote theist? Einstein was a jew. His views though seem to go towards a more unpersonal God. A creator who do not care. A mathematical beginning for everything.

The quote by Bacon is an afterthought to a longer debate I have had with many people over a month now. This was not the entire train of thought, but a summation.

Read the original post I made, and the replies afterwards. Then you will get the CONTEXT.

Anjelus 2 months ago (edited)
Einstein’s philosophy hero was 17th century Baruch Spinoza, who developed a natural theology around pan-en-theism (not to be confused with pantheism). The “God of Spinoza and Einstein” is an intelligent creator God, the source of all knowledge and all matter, who creates from the necessity of his own nature, but certainly wouldn’t do something so lowly as answer a prayer. Einstein’s thinking as a theist would have been along these lines. It’s why Einstein so emphasized determinism and was so disturbed by the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics.

I used to really quite agree with the Spinoza paradigm. “After all, why would God answer prayers? And how could God love anything, if he’s God and already has everything he wants? Ridiculous Christian ideas!”

I later grew to disagree with Spinoza, and then still later I accidentally became one of those “dumb and irrational” Christians. But if you want to know Einstein, you gotta go back to Spinoza! Lots of value in understanding his philosophy, especially Ethics 3, 4, and 5.

Andy Ace 2 months ago (edited)
+Anjelus I tend to go for the Jungian understanding of collective unconscious and the importance and truths of mythology. Not only do I get a lot from believing in Christianity I also get alot from art be it music, games, movies, books. There is something profoundly human in making things that have no use over enjoyment. I see art as a great gateway to this “collective unconscious” and also a way to understand ourselfs and the world.

As for God answering prayers. I dont know. I know in great strife I at least try to pray and that there is a consolation in just that. Asking greater powers for help in a situation beyond my control. But if I may refer to the bible here (but I am NOT a bible scholar) I think it is even stated in the New Testament that one should never pray for what one wants (as God knows that already) and that is why one should just say the Lord’s Prayer.

I do live in the real world, and I do see what atheists see. There are some very disturbed people in this world with an unhealthy relationship to God and religion. As I often say: My faith not weaken by debating atheists, it is debating other Christians. Some are extremely emotionally unstable, with a nevrotic view on everything. But to each its own.

But what is interessting is how reductive atheist see theism. Its “angry Christians who belive in talking snakes”. They do not seem to understand that a theist can be a lot of things.

Fine, they do not belive, but atleast understand that a theist world view may NOT be as simplistic as they try to reduce it to be.

Anjelus 2 months ago
In general, I’d avoid forming opinions based on the people’s conduct. It’s like how the American and French Revolutions both came from the same underlying liberal philosophy; but only the French had the guillotine and the reign of terror. The French crazy of the 1790s doesn’t mean the philosophy was wrong, and we can see the big difference when we compare with the Americans before them.

“Atheism” isn’t really a thing, it’s just “No God-ism.” A person who is a “No God-ist” can be any kind of person at all, depending on the ideology his internal vacuum has been filled with. He could be an utterly depraved nihilist or an eloquent, rationalist philosopher with a strong moral code. Similarly, someone can be a cultural Christian without ever having studied Christ in his life. What we call ourselves does matter, but it matters more whether our actions fit the name. That’s why Justin Martyr, a 2nd century Roman-Christian writer, could say that “even Socrates knew Christ.”

So far as prayer goes, Jesus in the NT is actually the #1 prayer guy, who prays before each and every major decision he takes.

Andy Ace 2 months ago
+Anjelus I agree 🙂

LogosTheo s2 months ago
+Mouthy Buddha You sound like a fundamentalist version of an atheist. I have lots of reasons to believe that materialism as philosophy is irrational, but don’t attack the intelligence of people who hold to it.

Hurling Camogie 2 months ago
LogosTheos “Fundamentalist Atheist” is about as real as the fake word “Islamophobia” which is a neologism used for the purpose of silencing crictics. Funny, saw what you did there, but it doesn’t work. Andy Ace has it backwards. All religion is founded on ignorant, outmoded, superstitious belief. This isn’t rocket science so if you feel your intellect is being insulted, good, because it is. So shame on you.

Andy Ace 1 month ago
+Nihil Sum Did you bother reading any of the 31 comments below my original one or did you just have to preach this argument Ad nauseam?

American Heritage Dictionary: “an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes, but not always, be a form of proof by assertion.”

I have allready addressed this MANY times. We are beyond this point now.

John Doe 3 weeks ago
Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
“This is the pop-culture I was talking about. The many memes. When a christian is portrayed in movies he is often seen as suspect, ignorant and bigoted. ”

No I am talking about actual religious people that I know or see in my hometown. They believe ridiculous anti-science and choose faith(believing with no evidence) over sound reason and rational conclusions.

“Historically the greatest thinkers were theist or christian in some way. That may have been because of the zeitgeist. But a zeitgeist (be it theist or atheist) does not dictate right or wrong. The greatest thinkers have been theist up until the last 20 years. Kant, Descartes, Jung, Orwell, Einstein.”

Historically most people have been believers(as far as we can tell, although nonbelievers often could not voice their unbelief). Aquinas formed his worldview of the knowledge available back then – which at the time, theism was the best/most logical answer. We now know things that make theism impossible to believe. Einstein very specifically said he believed only in a Spinoza god, which would not qualify him for what you talking about; since you talking about organised religion, not deism.

“So its NOT “rational to assume MOST of them offer these weak arguments” its ignorant to assume that.”

No, Aquinas, Aristotle, Epicurus, Jung etc did not have the information that we now currently have. Their arguments not only might seem weak for theism, but will almost certainly contain things that we now know to be false.

This isn’t the same as saying “all religious people are stupid”. I would never say that. A strong believing Christian sequenced my genome a couple months ago, he is alot smarter than I am or care to be, but when it comes to theism, he knows not to argue with me because him being smart doesn’t make the ridiculous claims of theism any less ridiculous.

I highly recommend you read God is not Great by C Hitchens, its an eye opener to theists and its respectful. It doesn’t call you dumb etc. Its just talks facts. Theism, particularly monotheism has opposed free inquiry for thousands of years – for good reason. Alternative worldviews often offered better explanations. Thus why Christians tried to destroy Atomism – and very nearly did, only one copy of “De Rerum Natura(On the Nature of Things)” by Lucretius survived after Christian fanatics tried to destroy his works.

One can only guess at what works weren’t so luckily to survive. Thanks to his work surviving, we know people have formulated the atomic theory before Jesus was even born. But we very nearly didn’t know that.

And let nobody say that it is over – Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being protested by Muslim women groups for voicing her concerns about the spread of Islam. Once again, religion is trying to choke to free inquiry.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
“You sound like a fundamentalist version of an atheist. I have lots of reasons to believe that materialism as philosophy is irrational, but don’t attack the intelligence of people who hold to it.”

Do materialists have a long history of chocking free inquiry and stopping science and reason and facts from spreading? Do materialists tell you you cannot be moral if you don’t believe as they do? Do materialists cut the top of babies penis’ off thinking that God told them to do so?

Your comparison hold no weight at all. The claims of the religious are immoral, not just wrong. The claims of materialist, arguably wrong, however, not so immoral. I don’t think a materialist has ever killed someone because of his materialist beliefs.

Its just a non comparison sorry.

Andy Ace 3 weeks ago (edited)
+John Doe
You say
“Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.”

Great rebuttal. The use of logic and evidence for your views put me in my place. I stand corrected. I also think everyone else can see the great power of atheist thinking here. Very good! A+

+Nondual Contrarian

you say
“No I am talking about actual religious people that I know or see in my hometown. They believe ridiculous anti-science and choose faith(believing with no evidence) over sound reason and rational conclusions. ”

And I see angry people who write “Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.” and think that is being rational and believing WITH evidence. We all take many things on faith. But where theist take things on faith from the bible or from the priest, atheist take things from faith from scientists and fellow atheists.

As for Christians becoming anti-science (although how representative this is to reality is disputable) atheists have much to blame as they have hijacked science and claimed it for themselves.

you say
“No, Aquinas, Aristotle, Epicurus, Jung etc did not have the information that we now currently have. ”

I guess I have to take that on faith… But no… That is wrong. Jung is not that old. We have had great technological advances after Jung, but not scientific discoveries.

TheOlzee 3 weeks ago
Andy Ace he doesn’t need to show evidence that god is utter BS YOU need to show evidence that it’s real. And not one person has ever been able to do it or even come close Saying “religion is retarded” is one of the best rebuttal to such nonsense that’s been squashed many many times before.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago (edited)
+Andy Ace Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! I can’t stand atheists or theists who just knock the other belief system and don’t present why. Its a waste of everyones time.

“And I see angry people who write “Wrong. Religion is fucking retarded.” and think that is being rational and believing WITH evidence. We all take many things on faith. But where theist take things on faith from the bible or from the priest, atheist take things from faith from scientists and fellow atheists. ”

No doubt there are atheists who say stuff like that, though I don’t see them as often as you do. Likewise, believe me, there are theists that do the same in reverse and you don’t see them much.

As for taking things on faith, I disagree. Atheists don’t need faith. Faith is believing without evidence yet science is based off of empirical evidence.

“As for Christians becoming anti-science (although how representative this is to reality is disputable) atheists have much to blame as they have hijacked science and claimed it for themselves.”

I disagree again. Atheists didn’t claim science, science simply tells us about the world and we don’t live in a theistic world, thus science points away from theism. How much this represents reality can even alluded to by the very things I mentioned. The fact that Christian fanatics, thousands of years ago tried to destroy atomism and the fact that some Christians TODAY insist that we walked the earth as the same time as the dinosaurs is atleast some evidence in my favour. To be a believing theist(not exclusive to Christianity), certain science must be denied. Indeed, to be anything close to a theist, believing in the afterlife or the soul or the actual resurrection is a blatant denial of empirical evidence. Atheist do not take this kind of faith. Perhaps we trust scienctists that are smarter than us due to a lack of understanding or time that they are right in their findings. However science has been set up to check itself repeatedly. Science is the one place you get points for proving yourself wrong. Peer review systems etc stress for actual truth more than any religious system ever has, or would want to; for obvious reasons.

“I guess I have to take that on faith… But no… That is wrong. Jung is not that old. We have had great technological advances after Jung, but not scientific discoveries.”

I must plead ignorance to Jung, I shouldn’t have included his name. I am not familiar with his work yet, still getting through Greek philosophy and Aquinas etc. Jung is on the list though.

I am 100% correct about the others though. Had I lived in the days of Aquinas or Spinoza(another great case as to how religion evades truth and persecutes free expression) I would have been a believer in some sort of God, perhaps even a theistic intervening God. We simply didn’t have better models of the world. And even if we did, you have to go to an actual library and know what to look for and certain works only existed in certain libraries etc. Nowadays, I sit at my PC and I have more information at my finger tips than all of those great thinkers combined. This is not at all to insult them, its simply a fact.

Thanks for the response 🙂

EDIT: Peterson is one the main reasons I want to read Jung. I love alot of Jordans work. I love CS Lewis’ books. I love reading Aristotle talk about God. I’m not at all anti-religious people, I am anti-religion. Or anti-theistic to be more accurate. Possibly anti-deistic.
Show less

John Doe 3 weeks ago
+Nondual Contrarian

> +Andy Ace Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! I can’t stand atheists or theists who just knock the other belief system and don’t present why. Its a waste of everyones time.

#1 Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. You seem dumb tho.

#2 Atheism is the default position. The burden of proof is not on me. And also religion being retarded is self-evident.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
+John Dee

“#1 Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. You seem dumb tho.”

Thanks, I totally didn’t know that. Its just wording, I meant I cannot stand people who attack other people based off of their belief or lackthere of.

“#2 Atheism is the default position. The burden of proof is not on me. And also religion being retarded is self-evident.”
Nobody is asking for evidence of a deity in this sub thread, why are you so quick to play the burden of proof card? I am an atheist too but do you have any idea how boring your replies are? And not useful. Do you really think calling religion retarded is going to make a theist deeply question there own beliefs? Its as useless as when a theist tries to put the burden of proof onto us. Its just a comment that if I see, I ignore. Theists will do the same to your comment. Thus you are wasting your time.

Also its self evident to you. It might not be to others. Imagine you were indoctrinated at a young age and now some pesky atheist is calling what you and your family believe in retarded? Granted, the actual doctrines are borderline retarded; thus why children see through them. But if you think every believers beliefs are as simple and black and white as the scriptures, you’re only displaying your own ignorance. Especially on a video about Peterson, who I think has a very interesting take on religion, even though I disagree with him; his views are not retarded, they are probably more nuanced than yours and mine combined – and I’m well read on the topic.
Show less

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
+TheOlzee “Saying “religion is retarded” is one of the best rebuttal to such nonsense that’s been squashed many many times before.”

Your opinion is retarded. See how useless that was for everyone involved? Can you see why theists cringe when they read that kind of stuff. I am an atheist, in fact an anti-theist but a non constructive comment isn’t a rebuttal at all, let alone “the best” rebuttal. Its simply a waste of time. It will convince nobody and make nobody challenge their own views. Its literally the worst reply. Saying nothing at all would be more useful; which speaks volumes about how utterly stupid and useless that assertion was.
Show less

John Doe 3 weeks ago (edited)
+Nondual Contrarian Wow, talk about religion apologetics.

> I meant I cannot stand people who attack other people based off of their belief or lackthere of.

Is it really hard to understand why somebody would “attack” belief systems that are so toxic and baseless as religion? Wow, I could not think of a more deserving belief system to “attack.”

> I am an atheist too but do you have any idea how boring your replies are? And not useful. Do you really think calling religion retarded is going to make a theist deeply question there own beliefs? Its as useless as when a theist tries to put the burden of proof onto us. Its just a comment that if I see, I ignore. Theists will do the same to your comment. Thus you are wasting your time.

Non-sensical religious arguments have been smashed again and again and again. There is no point in repeating. Call a spade a spade.

> Also its self evident to you. It might not be to others. Imagine you were indoctrinated at a young age and now some pesky atheist is calling what you and your family believe in retarded?

I’d say man up. Indoctrination is the lack of critical thinking, and therefore is the reason that children are vulnerable. This is no such defense for adults, unless you imply that they lack critical thinking.

> But if you think every believers beliefs are as simple and black and white as the scriptures, you’re only displaying your own ignorance.

Wrong. They made their choice to believe.

> Especially on a video about Peterson, who I think has a very interesting take on religion, even though I disagree with him; his views are not retarded, they are probably more nuanced than yours and mine combined – and I’m well read on the topic.

His views are not substantiated. His views are retarded.

TheOlzee 3 weeks ago (edited)
Nondual Contrarian no you’re wrong it’s the best because religion and god have been beaten time and time again. For me to keep arguing and debating with believers literally makes me an idiot. It is retarded, period!!!! Maybe you’re somewhat new to all this but like I said atheists have been making religious people look like the fools that they are for years and years. To argument with them makes me look silly. It’s like a parent arguing with a child. You just don’t do it cos the child is to stupid. Am i being clear here? Any argument I give back or any atheist gives back is a luxury to the believers.

Internet Contrarian 3 weeks ago
+John Doe Asking for a reasonable conversation instead of thoughtless assertions makes me a religion apologist?

“Is it really hard to understand why somebody would “attack” belief systems that are so toxic and baseless as religion? Wow, I could not think of a more deserving belief system to “attack.” ”

Learn how to actually debate then. Alchemy is retarded but saying that to someone who believes is not going to help. Make an actual criticism. Notice how Hitch, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Russell, Bolton, Shermer, Barker, Murray, Dursan, Bush, Krauss, Flynn, PZ Myers, Hirsi Ali, Carrier, Grayling, Sagan and Atkins don’t ever sell books saying “religion is retarded”? Notice how they construct actual useful and interesting arguments and view points? You’re failing at doing that. Hitch attacked religion perfectly without ever calling it retarded. You’re not smart for calling it retarded, you’re immature. If that makes me a religious apologist, than so be it.

“Non-sensical religious arguments have been smashed again and again and again. There is no point in repeating. Call a spade a spade.”

Its always worth establishing first principles. How do I know what I already think I know, except that I’ve always believed it? I enjoy these arguments, as do many; if you’re too simplistic to make an actual rebuttal, don’t say anything. Your comment is a waste of time for everyone.

“I’d say man up. Indoctrination is the lack of critical thinking, and therefore is the reason that children are vulnerable. This is no such defense for adults, unless you imply that they lack critical thinking.”

Beliefs carry over from childhood to adulthood. Granted its an unjustified belief in my opinion, however that wouldn’t mean I should just call it retarded. Why bother calling it that? Like what is your actual reason? No theist will ever read it and think “oh wow, very insightful”. Its just for your ego so you can feel smart yeah?

“Wrong. They made their choice to believe.”

Ignorance is bliss. People, even the very person of which this video is based, do not necessarily believe in the black and white literal truth of scripture just because they call themselves Christian/Muslim etc. Sure people choose to believe, but it doesn’t mean they all believe the exact same thing in fact, I am yet to meet 2 theists that agree on everything. Again, you’re only showing your ignorance to reality here. People will pick and choose certain things that they believe for whatever reason. Its not black and white and its not as simple as you’re attempting to make out.

“His views are not substantiated. His views are retarded.”

How are his views not substantiated(its unsubstantiated by the way)? He doesn’t even believe in a revealed God that intervenes from my understanding of his views(although I could be wrong). He is very very very far from theism, in fact most Christians would probably say he isn’t a “real” Christian. Plus, even if he believes some things dogmatically despite science, his views aren’t retarded. They might be wrong and perhaps unjustified in some cases, but retarded? If we’re calling Petersons interpretation of Christianity retarded, what word are we going to use on a fundamentalist? I’m starting to get a feeling that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, must have retarded views. This is telling, not about the “retarded views” but about you.

John Doe 3 weeks ago (edited)
> Learn how to actually debate then. Alchemy is retarded but saying that to someone who believes is not going to help. Make an actual criticism. Notice how Hitch, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Russell, Bolton, Shermer, Barker, Murray, Dursan, Bush, Krauss, Flynn, PZ Myers, Hirsi Ali, Carrier, Grayling, Sagan and Atkins don’t ever sell books saying “religion is retarded”? Notice how they construct actual useful and interesting arguments and view points? You’re failing at doing that. Hitch attacked religion perfectly without ever calling it retarded. You’re not smart for calling it retarded, you’re immature. If that makes me a religious apologist, than so be it.

#1 I never said I was not up for debating arguments.

#2 It is not immature. It is blunt. And so what? Your point sounds like an appeal to emotion.

> Its always worth establishing first principles. How do I know what I already think I know, except that I’ve always believed it? I enjoy these arguments, as do many; if you’re too simplistic to make an actual rebuttal, don’t say anything. Your comment is a waste of time for everyone.

But I have not seen a good argument yet. And I use the principles of science.
Your comment seems irrelevant

> Beliefs carry over from childhood to adulthood. Granted its an unjustified belief in my opinion, however that wouldn’t mean I should just call it retarded.

On the contrary, I feel it is justified.

> Why bother calling it that? Like what is your actual reason?

It is accurate.

> No theist will ever read it and think “oh wow, very insightful”. Its just for your ego so you can feel smart yeah?.

If they give any arguments, I can debate them.

> Ignorance is bliss. People, even the very person of which this video is based, do not necessarily believe in the black and white literal truth of scripture just because they call themselves Christian/Muslim etc. Sure people choose to believe, but it doesn’t mean they all believe the exact same thing in fact, I am yet to meet 2 theists that agree on everything. Again, you’re only showing your ignorance to reality here. People will pick and choose certain things that they believe for whatever reason. Its not black and white and its not as simple as you’re attempting to make out.

Red herring. And a straw man, since I never said they must believe all of religious dogma.

> How are his views not substantiated(its unsubstantiated by the way)?

#1 Because there is no evidence for religion. #2 Not substantiated is valid English.

> He doesn’t even believe in a revealed God that intervenes from my understanding of his views(although I could be wrong). He is very very very far from theism, in fact most Christians would probably say he isn’t a “real” Christian.

Red herring.

> Plus, even if he believes some things dogmatically despite science, his views aren’t retarded. They might be wrong and perhaps unjustified in some cases, but retarded?

Yes.

> If we’re calling Petersons interpretation of Christianity retarded, what word are we going to use on a fundamentalist?

More retarded.

> I’m starting to get a feeling that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, must have retarded views. This is telling, not about the “retarded views” but about you.

If someone uses good arguments against me, I would not say that they are retarded.

Timothy Stratton 4 days ago
To me, that’s not necessarily an insulting statement, but rather a statement of awe and wonder how someone who could think so much differently than him can nonetheless be very rational and respectable.

Andy Ace 3 days ago (edited)
+Internet Contrarian: Is it just me or has youtube made it more difficult to address people? Why does every web page hate debate now? Youtube was the best place if you ask me for debate. But they have put so many nails in the wall now its annoying. Moving on.

This became a long reply. Sorry about that.

you say
“Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! ”
Thank you. One needs a bit of humor in debate or one is going to get grey hairs quickly. Everyone thinks their opinion is the best one, and seldom do one experience people addmitting one was wrong. The few times I do it, its often mindblowing to the other debater. Its also funny how admitting one may be wrong on one part (i.e “You have a point there”) often result in the other stating my entire argument or idea is wrong. So I guess there is a reason why people dont do it that much. Moving on.

you say
“No doubt there are atheists who say stuff like that, though I don’t see them as often as you do.”

Be the devils advocate or “troll” as its popularly referred to now and you may have the same experience I have. Find an atheist video, state an argument of pro-theism and let the fun ensue.

you say
“Likewise, believe me, there are theists that do the same in reverse and you don’t see them much. ”

Oh, I know. As I often say “My faith is often more questioned by debating other theist than atheists”. I remeber having a great debate with an adventist (they think the sabbath is on saturday) of how important it was to have the sabbath on saturday. I call them “nevrotic christians”. Christians who think God is a personification of their nevortisim. That the most mundane things (like what they you keep holy) is important.

you say
“Atheists didn’t claim science, science simply tells us about the world and we don’t live in a theistic world, thus science points away from theism.”

I disagree. Perhaps I am older than you, perhaps its cuz I am from Europe, perhaps we just have different experience. But I grew up in a time when evolution was NOT in battle with religion. We were presented with a scientific explanation and a symbolic/metaphorical one. There were no either/or. This came post 2000. A false dichotomy. There is no EITHER like philosophy or religion. Either like science or art! Either like truth or religion.

I blame Doc Dawkins for this. But there could be other mechanisms as well. Perhaps there ARE anti-science Christians in the US that started it. In EUROPE this battle wasnt there until post-2000. Science doesnt point away from theism. In fact, science has saturated with Christian presuppositions (i.e mechanical world view and concepts of truth). Its just that many atheists speak from ignorance. But this ignorance gives them strength to belive they have the best cards. I guess its called “Dunning–Kruger effect”. The less you know, the more you think you know.

You say
“As for taking things on faith, I disagree. Atheists don’t need faith. Faith is believing without evidence yet science is based off of empirical evidence. ”

Observing atheists, they keep believing that their position is a neutral and rational one. That becoming atheist cleanses them of “faith” and irrationality. Speaking with atheists it comes up again and again this belief that saying you are atheist somehow makes you a part of the science community and even a scientist. I remeber onces talking to a high-school drop-out who also were atheists, and he spoke of some “fun fact” from reddit about a meteor that would land on earth at a very precise point OR not hit earth at all. I asked him “How come they know that it will land a spesific place on earth or NOT hit earth at all and he replied “*We* know that”.

“*We* know that”. Who is “we”? It seem to imply that he was a part of a science community, but he was a high school drop out.

Let me bring up another example. The internett guy I like to call “the angry atheist” or Amazing Atheist as people know him. I dont know much about his merrits. Perhaps he is a scientist. I feel he may NOT be. But him being atheist automatically to some make him a representation of “rationality”. He then makes a claim that youtube the word “atheist” is banned on youtube. He changed his name and then he wanted to change it back but couldnt. So now somehow the word “atheist” was banned from youtube. This was then spread trough the quote-unquote “sceptic community”. It was false. But it was a good example of two things: 1) That being an atheist automatically makes your views have merit and 2) how many people were willing to take his CLAIMS on faith.

That is what FAITH is. Taking something for granted “just because”. And atheist does it all the time to. They are NOT cleansed of bias or human religious nature.

You say
“The fact that Christian fanatics, thousands of years ago tried to destroy atomism and the fact that some Christians TODAY insist that we walked the earth as the same time as the dinosaurs is atleast some evidence in my favour. ”

I dont know how representative this is for Christians. I know there are some who make that claim, but if they represent 1%, 10% or 90% of christian community I do not know. I would say its closer to 1% though. I dont know how great representation of a group it has to be, to be valid, but I would claim there are more theistic scientists then what is popular to believe in atheist communities.

You say
“To be a believing theist(not exclusive to Christianity), certain science must be denied.”

Again, I claim this to be a false dichotomy. What part of science must be denied? Take evolution. To all Christians I know evolution was how God did it. The non-symbolic and non-aesthetic explanation of how we came to be. The bible is not a scientific text. Its written for other reasons than science. Again, its not SCIENCE or RELIGION. Its not SCIENCE or ART. We see this also in art and entertainment debates. Sci-fi HAS to be scientifically accurate to some people. Like how Jurassic World didnt have dinosaurs with feathers. This rigid approach to art from a certain community is fascinating. Kind of close to how Christians approach art before.

I made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI7TwnMEwkg

Andy Ace 3 days ago (edited)
My comment was removed. Youtube is working hard against debate. It was as I feared.

Let me repost the comment without link to video:
“Is it just me or has youtube made it more difficult to address people? Why does every web page hate debate now? Youtube was the best place if you ask me for debate. But they have put so many nails in the wall now its annoying. Moving on.

This became a long reply. Sorry about that.

you say
“Firstly, your reply to John Doe was freaking hilarious! ”
Thank you. One needs a bit of humor in debate or one is going to get grey hairs quickly. Everyone thinks their opinion is the best one, and seldom do one experience people addmitting one was wrong. The few times I do it, its often mindblowing to the other debater. Its also funny how admitting one may be wrong on one part (i.e “You have a point there”) often result in the other stating my entire argument or idea is wrong. So I guess there is a reason why people dont do it that much. Moving on.

you say
“No doubt there are atheists who say stuff like that, though I don’t see them as often as you do.”

Be the devils advocate or “troll” as its popularly referred to now and you may have the same experience I have. Find an atheist video, state an argument of pro-theism and let the fun ensue.

you say
“Likewise, believe me, there are theists that do the same in reverse and you don’t see them much. ”

Oh, I know. As I often say “My faith is often more questioned by debating other theist than atheists”. I remeber having a great debate with an adventist (they think the sabbath is on saturday) of how important it was to have the sabbath on saturday. I call them “nevrotic christians”. Christians who think God is a personification of their nevortisim. That the most mundane things (like what they you keep holy) is important.

you say
“Atheists didn’t claim science, science simply tells us about the world and we don’t live in a theistic world, thus science points away from theism.”

I disagree. Perhaps I am older than you, perhaps its cuz I am from Europe, perhaps we just have different experience. But I grew up in a time when evolution was NOT in battle with religion. We were presented with a scientific explanation and a symbolic/metaphorical one. There were no either/or. This came post 2000. A false dichotomy. There is no EITHER like philosophy or religion. Either like science or art! Either like truth or religion.

I blame Doc Dawkins for this. But there could be other mechanisms as well. Perhaps there ARE anti-science Christians in the US that started it. In EUROPE this battle wasnt there until post-2000. Science doesnt point away from theism. In fact, science has saturated with Christian presuppositions (i.e mechanical world view and concepts of truth). Its just that many atheists speak from ignorance. But this ignorance gives them strength to belive they have the best cards. I guess its called “Dunning–Kruger effect”. The less you know, the more you think you know.

You say
“As for taking things on faith, I disagree. Atheists don’t need faith. Faith is believing without evidence yet science is based off of empirical evidence. ”

Observing atheists, they keep believing that their position is a neutral and rational one. That becoming atheist cleanses them of “faith” and irrationality. Speaking with atheists it comes up again and again this belief that saying you are atheist somehow makes you a part of the science community and even a scientist. I remeber onces talking to a high-school drop-out who also were atheists, and he spoke of some “fun fact” from reddit about a meteor that would land on earth at a very precise point OR not hit earth at all. I asked him “How come they know that it will land a spesific place on earth or NOT hit earth at all and he replied “*We* know that”.

“*We* know that”. Who is “we”? It seem to imply that he was a part of a science community, but he was a high school drop out.

Let me bring up another example. The internett guy I like to call “the angry atheist” or Amazing Atheist as people know him. I dont know much about his merrits. Perhaps he is a scientist. I feel he may NOT be. But him being atheist automatically to some make him a representation of “rationality”. He then makes a claim that youtube the word “atheist” is banned on youtube. He changed his name and then he wanted to change it back but couldnt. So now somehow the word “atheist” was banned from youtube. This was then spread trough the quote-unquote “sceptic community”. It was false. But it was a good example of two things: 1) That being an atheist automatically makes your views have merit and 2) how many people were willing to take his CLAIMS on faith.

That is what FAITH is. Taking something for granted “just because”. And atheist does it all the time to. They are NOT cleansed of bias or human religious nature.

You say
“The fact that Christian fanatics, thousands of years ago tried to destroy atomism and the fact that some Christians TODAY insist that we walked the earth as the same time as the dinosaurs is atleast some evidence in my favour. ”

I dont know how representative this is for Christians. I know there are some who make that claim, but if they represent 1%, 10% or 90% of christian community I do not know. I would say its closer to 1% though. I dont know how great representation of a group it has to be, to be valid, but I would claim there are more theistic scientists then what is popular to believe in atheist communities.

You say
“To be a believing theist(not exclusive to Christianity), certain science must be denied.”

Again, I claim this to be a false dichotomy. What part of science must be denied? Take evolution. To all Christians I know evolution was how God did it. The non-symbolic and non-aesthetic explanation of how we came to be. The bible is not a scientific text. Its written for other reasons than science. Again, its not SCIENCE or RELIGION. Its not SCIENCE or ART. We see this also in art and entertainment debates. Sci-fi HAS to be scientifically accurate to some people. Like how Jurassic World didnt have dinosaurs with feathers. This rigid approach to art from a certain community is fascinating. Kind of close to how Christians approach art before. ”

Andy Ace 3 days ago
+THeOlzee
you say

“he doesn’t need to show evidence that god is utter BS YOU need to show evidence that it’s real.”

This is an example of atheist religious nature. If I claim one thing and you another. Why is it that only one part has to give evidence?

-Then in the spamfilter-

Uten navn 4
Andy Ace 3 days ago
+John Doe. Speak for yourself. I did not end up in the spamfilter as you did 😉

John Doe 3 days ago (edited)
+Andy Ace You’re salty, brah.

Religion is schizophrenia.

Andy Ace 3 days ago
John Doe Oki-doki.

John Doe 3 days ago
+Andy Ace REKT

Internet Contrarian 3 days ago
+John Doe Wow, now I see why theists always accuse atheists of being reductionist.

John Doe 3 days ago (edited)
+Internet Contrarian Too bad atheism isn’t reductionist, you dumb fuck.

Internet Contrarian 3 days ago
+Andy Ace I really don’t get this point, can you help clear up my confusion?

“Science doesnt point away from theism. In fact, science has saturated with Christian presuppositions (i.e mechanical world view and concepts of truth). Its just that many atheists speak from ignorance. But this ignorance gives them strength to belive they have the best cards. I guess its called “Dunning–Kruger effect”. The less you know, the more you think you know. ”

Are you saying any worldview that has “truth” in it, is based of Christian presuppositions? You’re aware thats not how truth works right? Regardless of Christianity or not, truth exists. Things are true or false. I’d say science really does point away from theism. I’m so sorry, I can’t give any ground at all here. Christianity has taught the most abject nonsense for thousands of years and still, STILL today people are trying to sneak it into the education system etc; be it intelligent design or that we trod the earth with dinosaurs. For thousands of years Christianity taught that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Could not have been more wrong.

Science says the afterlife is false. Theism says, the afterlife exists.
Science says the soul isn’t real. Theism says we all harbour immaterial souls.
Science says naturalistic world models work. Theism asserts deities and supernatural entities.

“There is no EITHER like philosophy or religion. Either like science or art! Either like truth or religion. ”

True but either it is true or it isn’t. I would say Christianity is not true and thus quite useless. Peterson fans harp on about esoteric meaning found in the bible – I have a simple reply: Fine, take the good parts from he theism and drop the theism. Whatever is good in Christianity should, in principle be good even when secularised.

Furthermore, regardless of what profound esoteric meaning you find, I kind of don’t care. Even if I really wanted to agree with you, my conscious would speak out. Christianity has plagued our species. Think of all the great men and women free thinkers that we oppressed by it. Condemned and forced to believe; punished if they didn’t. I say whatever meaning you get from theism, it isn’t worth what we went through thanks to these books. Will you be so quick to defend the quran? Do you give a single fuck about the esoteric meaning of the quran(given that in the last 24 hours 2 Islamic terrorists have died shouting allah ackbar, being taught fromt he quran of course)?

“Observing atheists, they keep believing that their position is a neutral and rational one. That becoming atheist cleanses them of “faith” and irrationality.”

Well it is a neutral position technically. It makes no claims at all. Its a lack of a belief. Not a positive assertion. Thus alot of atheists will remain neutral as to not pick up the burden of proof(because theists will often say soemthing like “well how do you explain the start of the universe than”, as if me not being able to explain the start of the universe proves that it must have been made by God etc).

“Speaking with atheists it comes up again and again this belief that saying you are atheist somehow makes you a part of the science community and even a scientist. I remeber onces talking to a high-school drop-out who also were atheists, and he spoke of some “fun fact” from reddit about a meteor that would land on earth at a very precise point OR not hit earth at all. I asked him “How come they know that it will land a spesific place on earth or NOT hit earth at all and he replied “*We* know that”.
“*We* know that”. Who is “we”? It seem to imply that he was a part of a science community, but he was a high school drop out. ”

He probably means “we” as in humans. Like how “we” know the earth is round, not flat. “We” humans “know” that, even though some people contend it. The atheist was probably alluding to an argument of demonstrability: it may not be said that only the natural exists(how would I know). It may be said only the natural can be demonstrated to exist. For this reason and this reason alone, you will run into a lot of issues with theism. Atheists commonly claim philosophical naturalism – a mistake in my view; but alot are smartening up and getting behind methodological naturalism, which has already left theism in the curb.

How can I say methodological naturalism has left theism in the curb? Goto any science department. Go to any physics institute, goto NASA, goto a doctor/hospital. They ALL use naturalism in the thing they actually need to work. The guy flying your plane never appeals to God for it. No doctor ever appeals to the supernatural. This is because we know naturalism works.
They don’t show graphs in science to then appeal to something supernatural. Its always explained by the natural; which is afterall, much more beautiful and much more elegant than the idea of monotheism.

” 1) That being an atheist automatically makes your views have merit and 2) how many people were willing to take his CLAIMS on faith. ”

1) well of course it doesn’t, there are tons of retarded atheists, John Doe is one. However, he doesn’t claim to be here under a supernatural divine plan – he doesn’t claim to know Gods mind with NO EVIDENCE. Perhaps he is more rational than you?
2) taking someones opinion on the internet without evidence is slightly different to insiting that the entire cosmos was made with us in mind without evidence. And that I should snip my babies penis. And that I can’t sleep with men etc. Faith is a good thing in religious groups. It isn’t a good thing in science. Doubt is actually a sin for crying out loud.

Plus, I’m not taking something on faith if my doctor tells me it. I’m listening to a better, more educated on the topic world view and taking the advise. The theist however believes a raw belief because of a book written 2000 years ago. Again. the difference between having “faith” in a scientific study that I havn’t read, but no less trust is NOT the same as saying I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and he was the literal son of God and I have no evidence. There is a HUGE difference. We can play semantics all day about how I technically take things on faith, but the difference is clear.

“Again, I claim this to be a false dichotomy. What part of science must be denied? Take evolution. To all Christians I know evolution was how God did it. The non-symbolic and non-aesthetic explanation of how we came to be. The bible is not a scientific text. Its written for other reasons than science. Again, its not SCIENCE or RELIGION. Its not SCIENCE or ART. We see this also in art and entertainment debates. Sci-fi HAS to be scientifically accurate to some people. Like how Jurassic World didnt have dinosaurs with feathers. This rigid approach to art from a certain community is fascinating. Kind of close to how Christians approach art before. ”

I disagree. I’m talking theology not what modern secular xtains think. Christianity teaches that Earth was made in 7 days, around 10000 years ago. Maybe 6000? I understand YOU don’t think that, well done, you’ve used your brain, but Christianity holds it as that. That seems to be anti-science in my submission. Perhaps it isn’t. Perhaps it is metaphorical? Well for along time they didn’t know that and were deluded.

And yes yes I know. Its quite clear that God created us out of Dirt. It explicitly says that. The science contradicts that, so then evolution just becomes “gods plan”. So its an un-ending tautology. Infinitely explaining. It can’t be disproved. When evidence directly contradicts it, it simply morphs to the new evidence and still claims to be right. That is anti-science if anything ever is.

Internet Contrarian 3 days ago
+John Doe I know it isn’t, I am an atheist; my point was how reductionist your reply to me was. You think that the fact no argument FOR X exists, we can assert that we have disproved X. That is ridiculous and reductionist. Disproof requires positive evidence. You can’t disprove by saying “no argument for God convinced me”. You are actually why atheists get a bad wrap.

Rayn Gryphon 3 days ago (edited)
All science will be wrong in one thousand years. They will say, “Wow. They used silicon-based microchips and thought a giant explosion saw its shadow and conceived of a multiplicative order of evolutionary and, strangely, cybernetic proliferation of life and taxation. What if they just ate whole non-gluten organic food and spent more time with their children than it takes to drop them off at government-run detention centers and then enjoyed the levels of brain development that they and their mongoloid ancestors had for some reason eschewed for thousands of years?” For the primary strategic objective of all religious, state, mass, social, family, penal, prison, military and cult psychology (and psychosis) is to gain and improve a total monopoly upon all systems and organs of communication in a cybernetic-industrial society as religiously as scientifically kept poised upon a bloody if profitable brink of perpetual near collapse veritably at war with every natural instinct with which a child is born and to which we force our most vulnerable citizenry to conform under only the most Herculean duress, duress that could not possibly fail to stymie the courage and whole brain development of the most battle-hardened combat soldier (of “the sun”), let alone that of a wee child whose birth is converted to a transaction of goods or capital transferred from a water way (the womb) and rendered effectively non-living upon delivery by every scientific, medical, religious and legal genesis that ostensibly “free” human beings subsequently rely upon in order to coordinate themselves with every parameter and aspect of what is left of their life in death and death in life a pageant of glorified memento morte that billions of ostensibly well educated, spiritual and duly informed people simultaneously and symbiotically buy, sell, live for, die for, quibble over, worship, study, medicate, rebel against and prop up on the order of their own ability to breathe and fuck, eat, drink and shit.

Andy Ace 3 days ago
+Internet Contrarian
you say
” I really don’t get this point, can you help clear up my confusion?

“Science doesnt point away from theism…”

The history of science is long, and hasnt been as separated from religion (christianity) before, as now. During the scientific revolution there were three main philosophers of importance. Descartes, Kand & Hume. Only one of them was atheist (Hume was most likely an atheist) and he was the only one of the three who claimed that one can never know truth. These three philosophers are the basis of our understanding of truth and how we can know it. This is NOT “just” philosophy. They were important for the scientific revolution.

As for science, if you look at most universities in the western world, their mottos are usually something about God. I.e “Scientia et religio, ex uno fonte.” This is not a coincidence. It has to do with the fact that SCIENCE and faith hasnt been ad odds before the last 20-30 years do to aggressive atheist campaigning. We have known of evolutions for 200 (?) years, only the last 30 has this been synonymous with “there is no God”.

We are heavily saturated with christian belief even if we do not know it or recognize it. An atheist will say “Oh, my God!” when surprised. We talk of our souls even if we do not believe in the supernatural and concepts of good and evil stay with us even if there can be no such dichotomy if life is just being.

you say
“Science says the afterlife is false. Theism says, the afterlife exists.”
Where does science make that claim?

you say
“Science says the soul isn’t real. Theism says we all harbour immaterial souls. ”

Where has science made that claim?

you say
“Science says naturalistic world models work. Theism asserts deities and supernatural entities.”

Although science is bound by what is observable, does not mean they negate anything else.

you say
“True but either it is true or it isn’t.”

I may be half right. I may be a bit right. I may claim that there is a Christian God but it turns out it was a Jewish or Muslim or Non-denominal one. With complex world views on doesnt need to be completely right, to be right.

you say
” Christianity has plagued our species. Think of all the great men and women free thinkers that we oppressed by it. Condemned and forced to believe; punished if they didn’t. I say whatever meaning you get from theism, it isn’t worth what we went through thanks to these books. ”

Now, I am NOT a history buff. As Napoleon (may have) said “history is lies agreed upon”. But I think you need to go back to the history books there. I think you just got the atheist cliffnotes. Read about The Terror (french revolution). Understand that the dark ages was not as bad as people say, and even if it was it was not because of christianity. Do you know why we had the dark ages? Because the fall of Rome. Christianity was the thing that kept written language, and science up during this time. Then we have sovjet. Lots of horrible deeds done in the name of atheism there.

you say
“Will you be so quick to defend the quran? Do you give a single fuck about the esoteric meaning of the quran(given that in the last 24 hours 2 Islamic terrorists have died shouting allah ackbar, being taught fromt he quran of course)?”

Yes and no. I like to draw parallels to democracy when the “other religions” are drawn. I may support or not support Donald Trump. He won. Does that mean I now hate democracy if I didnt want him to win? Both republicans and democrats say they are “right”, should I then not vote?

That would be absurd. I am not a muslim. I take offence to many of the things they believe. In fact, many christians see Islam as a devils cult because so many things goes against Christians values and beliefs. They are allowed to lie, they are allowed to kill. Lots of stuff like that.

That being said, we do agree that there is a God, we just done agree on what God wants for us. Just like (hopefully) both democrats and republicans agree in democracy, they just dont agree on everything.

you say
“Plus, I’m not taking something on faith if my doctor tells me it. I’m listening to a better, more educated on the topic world view and taking the advise.”

You better question the doctor too. Many dont care and do not have the knowledge you have of your own medical history. I have more than once corrected mistaken diagnoses on my own health.

you say
“And yes yes I know. Its quite clear that God created us out of Dirt. It explicitly says that. The science contradicts that, so then evolution just becomes “gods plan”.”

Do they? Do you know what abiogenesis is?

Rayn Gryphon 3 days ago
You guys are fucked.

Internet Contrarian 2 days ago
“”Science says the afterlife is false. Theism says, the afterlife exists.”
Where does science make that claim?”

Physics. There is no way for the information that makes you “you” to exist beyond the decay of your brain. I can link studies for this if you like?

“”Science says the soul isn’t real. Theism says we all harbour immaterial souls. ”

Where has science made that claim?”

Every experiment ever done leads to naturalism. No evidence leads to a soul. 0. None.

“Although science is bound by what is observable, does not mean they negate anything else. ”

It does to me and anyone else who is rational. I can’t disprove flying space ants wearing top hats with lazer eyes. I rationally do not believe in them until there is evidence to support it.

“I may be half right. I may be a bit right. I may claim that there is a Christian God but it turns out it was a Jewish or Muslim or Non-denominal one. With complex world views on doesnt need to be completely right, to be right.”

Well you’d better hope its not Allah, he doesn’t exactly take kindly to those who worship other Gods.

“Now, I am NOT a history buff. As Napoleon (may have) said “history is lies agreed upon”. But I think you need to go back to the history books there. I think you just got the atheist cliffnotes. Read about The Terror (french revolution). Understand that the dark ages was not as bad as people say, and even if it was it was not because of christianity. Do you know why we had the dark ages? Because the fall of Rome. Christianity was the thing that kept written language, and science up during this time. Then we have sovjet. Lots of horrible deeds done in the name of atheism there. ”

Man cmon. I’ll argue soviet russia with you if you want, but why you jumping to that from my point? This isn’t a “atheism is better than theism” point I was making. It was that even if I wanted to be a theist, I would feel terrible given all the people who were silenced by the church. Not just monotheisms but belief in Gods has always oppressed people. Socrates was put to death for challenging the Gods. Spinoza was dis-communicated and cursed. Galileo was sentenced to death for saying the earth wasn’t the center(he was right). If you think even just those 3 cases were worth a belief in God, I struggle to see how you sleep at night.

“You better question the doctor too. Many dont care and do not have the knowledge you have of your own medical history. I have more than once corrected mistaken diagnoses on my own health. ”

Right well, semantics again. Asking the doctor for general information about your diagnoses is still technically taking it on faith. Technically, to be sure, you’d have to read alot of studies on many sicknesss’ and cures etc and work it out for yourself. No one has that kind of time(not for every scientific theory). So we take educated opinions on it. This is alot different to the faith that religious people have. Faith contradicts evidence often in terms of theism.

“Do they? Do you know what abiogenesis is?”

Again, semantics. Its clear in the bible we were created, not evolved. If you accept evolution, good for you; but it doesn’t mean thats secretly what Christianity taught. It has opposed scientific inquiry every step of the way.

Andy Ace 2 days ago
you say
“Physics. There is no way for the information that makes you “you” to exist beyond the decay of your brain. I can link studies for this if you like?”

Sure. I would love to read that. You cant post real links though or you will end up in spam filter. Just give me the titles of the documents. I can google.

you say
“Every experiment ever done leads to naturalism. No evidence leads to a soul. 0. None.”

As far as I know, science talk about consciousness. That is not the same as debunking the concept of soul. Science does not dedicate its field to debunking theistic claims.

you say
“It does to me and anyone else who is rational. ”

I think you should have stopped after “It does to me”.

you say
“I can’t disprove flying space ants wearing top hats with lazer eyes. I rationally do not believe in them until there is evidence to support it. ”

That is your choice. I guess you would be one of those who laughed at the guy who said the world was build up of tiny bits to. Of course I do not think there is “flying space ants wearing top hats with lazer eye”. That was not what we were debating. Do you see that? This is reductive and stupid.

Just because it cant be proven, just because we dont know it exists, does NOT mean it doesnt exist. Which leads up back to the Mexican standoff. I ask for evidence that there is no God. You ask for evidence that there is. I have non, you have non. Fine. Believe what you want to belive, just dont say its based on facts. It is not. Its based on a cultural zeitgeist. Which leads me back to my original posts.

you say
“Well you’d better hope its not Allah, he doesn’t exactly take kindly to those who worship other Gods. ”

I sure dont.

you say
“Man cmon. I’ll argue soviet russia with you if you want, but why you jumping to that from my point? This isn’t a “atheism is better than theism” point I was making.”

I think it was.

You said: “Christianity has plagued our species. Think of all the great men and women free thinkers that we oppressed by it. ” To quote the bible “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye,
but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye?” That was my point. “Christianity has plagued our species”. Atheist are far more blood thirsty when given the chance and more effektive as well. History is NOT on atheist´s side. Not only can they be violent in their prosecution of people they do not belive in, they arent very healthy to cultures as a whole either. It rots the moral and destroys a culture from the inside. For more you can read Émile Durkheim. Start with “suicide” and the term Anomie. Max Weber talked about the “Protestant work ethic”. Another example of how christianity is more healthy for western culture than atheism.

you say
“It was that even if I wanted to be a theist, I would feel terrible given all the people who were silenced by the church. ”

And if I was an atheist I would feel terrible about all the horrible things being done and THOUGHT by atheism. I have seen atheist defend pedophila, post-birth abortions, genocide, rape. Do you think a catholic priest who molested children would even DREAM of really defending it? Defend genocide? Defend rape? No. But what belief did the founder of NAMBLA have? Guess 😉

you say
“Socrates was put to death for challenging the Gods. ”

No he was not. He was put to death for corrupting the youth. There was no priesthood/Clergy sending him to death. This was politics, not religion.

you say
” Galileo was sentenced to death for saying the earth wasn’t the center”

Here are wikipedia fun facts for reflection:
“Galileo seriously considered the priesthood as a young man”
“following the death of Copernicus and before Galileo, heliocentrism was relatively uncontroversial”
“Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo’s writings combined religious and scientific objections and were fueled by political events.”

Take that last sentence. Study it abit. Notice something? You say RELIGION is to blame. But look… “combined religious and scientific objections and were fueled by political events” There were MORE factors into this.

you say
“Again, semantics. Its clear in the bible we were created, not evolved. ”

So we were created from dirt (abiogneisis) but there is no evolution in the bible? Hmm. So in the creation story we as humans do not evolve? Sure about that? What does the apple represent then?

“Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Do monkeys feel shame for being naked?
After apple “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.”

This is evolution. They evolve both referentially but also symbolically.

Phillip Zverev 1 hour ago
Andy Ace dang…. nuff’ said

Andy Ace 2 seconds ago
+Rayn Gryphon I am sorry to tell you this, but you have ended up in the google spam-filter. I do not know why and it kind of scares me. We could all end up in this “web void” where our comments disappear.

 

Andy Ace 2 seconds ago
+Phillip Zverev I dont know if this is a compliment, but I will take it as one 😉

 

Movies

Blog 2.0 – Atheism! Dont need to prove their right, because you are wrong.

Me being PC. Almost full SJW.

23 Jun

Sooo…

I am a Christian Concervative and I hate SJW and Political correctness. Then I watched a video that made me almost go full SJW. Here is the ressult.

 

 

Bruised ring

Blog 2.0 – May be working for the devil.

 

Is atheism a religion?

12 Feb

Sooo…

Is atheism a religion? “Yes”, many theist would say. “No”, would most atheist. I would say “yes and no”. I will now explain why.

Atheism is not a religion like theism is not a religion.

atheismnotrelgion

I have said to many atheist “freethinkers” that they are a religion. This I do mostly to annoy them and they are really easy to flame. I do think that much of atheism is religious, and I will get back to that, but first I will point out some truthful distinctions.

Atheism, in its purest and most narrow of definitions, is only the philosophical metaphysical belief/knowledge that there is NO god(s).

In this sense it would be true that “atheism is a religion like off is a channel“; A saying that is a popular atheist meme* that you will probably encounter soon, should you try to call them religious.

So I do not disagree with this tautology. In fact the same can be said about the stand of theism. “Theism is no more a religion than on is a channel“. It is just the antonyms of atheism, thus just “the philosophical metaphysical belief/knowledge that there IS god(s)

The point of pointing out this is to show that believing or not believing is in itself not religious, but, as I now will try to show, most atheist are highly religious.

When is atheism religious?

hardyharhar
As I have said, believing or not believing in a god is not religious in itself, but still I like to call a number of atheist religious. Why I think this is necessary, and how come I think this is true, I will now share.

Its not a question of IF atheism is a religion, but when is atheism a religion?

According to wikipedia, religion is defined as such: “Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality.

Check mate, AndyAce83.

It specifically says “the supernatural, and to spirituality.” and as I should know, atheist dont believe in the supernatural. They may belive in a kind of “spirituality” like “we are all connected, we are all stardust“, but still its hard to say that atheist have a spiritual side since the soul or spirit can not exist without a sort of “supernatural” route (although they will talk about a soul whenever it soothes their purpose).

The point is that “supernatural” and “spiritual” is very loaded words that I think we should be skeptical to use in the definition of religion. Being skeptical is very important in atheist communities, but somehow I dont think this is what they had in mind. But there are other definitions of religion that is not defined by the last editor of the wiki article.

Clifford Geertz for instance defined religion as

“(1) a system of symbols (2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

(from RELIGION AS A CULTURAL SYSTEM: THE THEORY OF CLIFFORD GEERTZ, by Ira Chernus )

With this definition atheism can be clearly religious, but of course, like most definitions, it may be disputed as well. Especially by people who can see that this definition can be used against their belief.

e4a82

I do, though, believe that religion and being religious is NOT based on belief in “supernatural” or “spirituality”.

I believe there have been UFO cults around that is not “supernatural” although we may not believe in UFOs ourselves and although we as outsiders may think of thetan readings as mumbojumbo BS but to the Church of Scientology this is “highly scientific“. As you may know, Scientology says they are “just an alternative to psychology”.

Like most definitions of human endeavors (aka. humaniora or “the soft sciences”) religion is just a matter of perception and what is important to us. For atheist, it is very important to be critical and skeptical to religion and therefor the notion that they themselves may be just that, can be a hard thought to grasp.

So if we, for the sake of argument, refute the wikipedia definition of “spiritual and supernatural” and instead focus on Geertz´s definition, can atheism be seen as a religion?

The many signs and symbols of atheism (stolen from http://signsanddisplays.wordpress.com/ )

The many signs and symbols of atheism (stolen from http://signsanddisplays. wordpress.com/ )

The first defining characteristic of religion by Geertz was “(1) a system of symbols”. Do atheist have a system of symbols? The first kind of symbol we think of is the iconographic symbols of the cross, the jewish star, the islamic moon, the wheel of Dharma or the “fat guy” in Buddhism. Do atheist have such symbols? Yes, lots of them.

They have the “happy human” of humanism, they have the A+ symbol, the darwin fish, the pastafarian etc. They have an endless amount of symbols to represent their faith.

But much of this is parody“, you may say. Yes, and the need to parody, ridicule and pervert other peoples beliefs is a cornerstone in the atheist religious practice. The tradition of being a smug besserwisser is one of their biggest traditions. And traditions is “a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning” [wikipedia].

I have debated alot of atheist, not to convert them, but to put them in their place. I dont care what people belive as long as the accept other peoples point of view and dont force their convictions down others throats. Atheist are the most preachy and proselyting group I have ever encountered. They are aggressive and rude.
72855b36c6286d69ec032907b5fa6ad5f8ae3ace00499c5f8f3ed0097bbdd5eb
Anyway, debating these atheist for a long time one starts to discover patterns in their way of debating. They aren´t really defending their position as much as attacking and ridiculing others view. When you demand they defend their views they will usually become very quiet or go to what I call the “atheist safespace”.

The “atheist safespace” is regurgitating what has been said many times before. They may say “you can´t prove a negative” or “atheism is a religion like off is a channel” or something about “talking snakes” or quotes from the bible they do not like. They love to point out part of history where theistic religions have done dirty deeds, but when people try to point out the many atheistic miss-deeds, its never really atheism cuz atheism is just “disbelief”. A disbelief they are very passionate about.

Being blinded by ones own religious nature is a very religious thing indeed. And atheist hate it with passion to be called out on their religious behaviors. That is why I do it constantly. Not because I cant respect or understand their point of view, but because they can not respect mine.

Again… Not all atheist are religious anymore than all theist. Its just a philosophical understanding of the world. It is behaviour that defines wether or not they be the religious type.

Do they need to preach their beliefs everywhere they go? Can they not show any tolerance for other peoples ideas and beliefs? Do they look for kindred spirits and unite in their beliefs? Do they sing songs about their cause and belief? Do they have a utopic vision of how the world would be if their ideas were the dominating one? Do they quote scriptures (The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, Letter to a Christian Nation) and prophets of their beliefs (Doc Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc?) like it has some kind of profound meaning? Do they have symbols in their avatars to indicate their belief? Are they passionate about their ideas and think they are surely and unquestionably right? Have they extremist among them willing to kill for atheism? Have they ritualized ridicule? Do they belive that anything positive about their belief is unquestionable truth, but anything that proves negative sides are ignored (confirmation bias)?

Many atheist have much if not all of these traits. That is why they are religious. If atheism is “just a disbelief” why then is it so important to them to put their atheism out there? Why is atheism such a character trait to them that they have to add it to their bio? Its just disbelief after all.

So you may or may not agree with me that atheism is a religion. Perhaps because of religious reason? But why is it important to me that we recognize atheism as a religion “like off is a channel”? It has to do with debates on value and culture.

You see there is a reason why atheist think its important to be seen as non-religious; It gives them the neutral position. The unbiased position. Their causes and agendas will be seen by them as the honest and impartial one. For the “good of everyone”, when in fact its just for themselves.

Their fight for secularity has the aura of being non-partisan. Usually its the respect towards minorities like Islam, Judaism or misc. (“Hindu. There are seven hundred million of us.” Aww, that’s super.) But they arent fighting for secularity out of some respect for minor religions, they are fighting for secularity for themselves. They want to dominate the western culture. They want to be able to preach their world view without being questioned.

To religious atheist secularity is ultimate. There should be no references to God in schools, hospitals or anywhere. The atheist get to mock other religions, but they themselves should never be mocked. Cuz they are the perfect stand. There is nothing funny about being right.

They are blinded by their own religious nature, and that can be dangerous. They project their bigotry unto religious people to a fascinating degree. They say that Christians try to force their beliefs down others throat, but all I see is atheist trying to convert others trough mockery and aggressive argumentation. They are NOT religious, they say with a passion that can only be seen as religious.

2cb608760a9f2a6100d7ce6f8b4f1e66

Blog 2.0 -  "You are so wrong Andy! As Sam Harris said in his letter to a Christian nation: "Blablablablablabla". Amen!"

Blog 2.0 – “You are so wrong Andy! As Sam Harris said in his letter to a Christian nation: “Blablablablablabla”. Amen!”

(*After debating with lots of atheist it has befallen me that most of their arguments are meme based. The same quotations and arguments have been said countless times without much rewriting or paraphrasing. My theory is that most “new atheist” or born “again atheist” have read a sort of “atheist cannon” and also by sharing beliefs on forums also teach each other these arguments. These forums tend to be like the Christian sunday schools or bible study where they teach each other the theories of godlessness to strengthen their faith.)

25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male – A reply

5 Dec

Soooo…

I just saw this little feministic propaganda video from FeministFrequency called 25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male. I got sick to my stumack of it. Let´s watch—>


—————————————————–

As is the style of the time, we (the people) are of course not allowed to debate their brilliance, as there are noe comments allowed on the video.

Listen and believe” is the feminist catchphrase, if I remember correctly. So sit down and shut up. Now fortunately FemFreq has also written a transcript of this little brilliant piece of you-know-what and so I can just copy-paste it and comment on it here. Yay!

But let´s start with this nice little explanation in the description of the video. It reads—>

Please note: This list is referring primarily to straight men who are not transgender but similar lists could be created for white, straight, cis, or able-bodied privilege and there would certainly be some overlap with the conditions identified in this video.

So now we know who FemFreq is calling out, basically everybody, but especially white straight males. They are, after all, the scum of the earth. But one of these scums decided to talk to us about the evils of being a white straight man. How brave of him. He is called McEntoch or whatever. And he starts the video by saying:

Many women have courageously spoken out about how they experience alienation and harassment in gaming. Despite this fact, too many male gamers dismiss the issue as “no big deal” and insist that there isn’t really a problem. One of the luxuries of being a member of a privileged group is that the benefits afforded to us often remain invisible to us. Working towards solutions requires that male gamers become aware of the ways in which we unconsciously benefit from sexism. We can’t work to fix something unless we first understand its effects. With that in mind the following is a checklist of some of the concrete benefits that male gamers automatically receive simply for being men.

This is a brilliant introduction which basically says: If you don´t agree its because you can´t see. “Was blind, but now I see.” You need a religious awakening to the glories of feminism. But here is the thing, if I am blind to my privileges, is it possible feminist are blind to theirs too? Let´s see if we can turn it around later, but now let´s focus on each of the sad misseries women who play videogames have to endure.

I can choose to remain completely oblivious, or indifferent to the harassment that many women face in gaming spaces.

Maybe I am blind, but it is kind of hard to be oblivious to the harassment when people keep ranting on about it. White knigg-its and rad-fems have been crying over how little sensitivity there are in gaming. Now I have tried to be indifferent to female harassment, as I have seen non among my female friends in gaming, but there is always some youtuber or giant bomb user or other forum idiot who needs to hammer it in that there is soo much harassment in gaming. WHERE? WHERE IS IT? Am I that blind?

Of course not… I am not blind, its just that I am not crazy either. You see when someone harrass me or my friends I think “That is an asshole”, not “that is a misogynist from the dark side of patriarchy”. I do not “-ism it up” so to speak. I havent been brainwashed by the femnist and leftwing movment, who needs everything to be about oppression of women or whomever they choose to “help”.

Now take this little let´s play of mine for instance —>


—————————————————-

In this video some player tells me to kill myself. Now what kind of -ism can I blame that on? Since I have identified myself as a white, cis-gendered, “normal” man I have no one to blame. Who will send me money so I can fight oppression? Fact is some people are cruel idiots and that is a gender neutral description. I have had some encounters online with very aggressive women calling me names for sucking at games, but I haven´t cried about it for days on end and said “I am a victim of the materiachy!“. That would be spineless of me. No, as any normal person does, I brush it off and hope I never meet that person again.

I am never told that video games or the surrounding culture is not intended for me because I am male.

Who acctoly says this? Who says “games are not meant for you cuz you are a woman“? The only thing I know is that “adult games” are not meant for children, but even when I meet children who play adult games I rarely comment on it as I do not want to be seen as too much of a prude. But I do think its strange when children around the age of 8 play Borderlands or Payday (I mean what is the Nintendo Wii U meant for? No reason it bombs when children are allowed to play adult games like that).

But I digress… The point is, in my looooong time as a gamer I have never heard “you as a woman can not be a gamer” uttered once. Just for fun, let me google it and see if I can find any thread or blog who says it either. One moment…

I googled “Women can not be gamers” and this is what I found on page 1.

Article one “Why can’t women compete against men at video games? Sexism, that’s why” meaning that the first thing who mentioned it was a feminis article. Now let me browse some more to see if I can find any original statements of this, instead of just perceived notions that people think this.

Nothing on page 2 or 3. On page 4 I found Hearthstone tournament explains why women aren’t allowed to play “. I guess that is kind of sexist. The explanation was “The decision to divide male and female competitions was made in accordance with international sports authorities, as part of our effort to promote e-Sports as a legitimate sports.

But fine… Someone has probably said sometime that women arent gamers. Who cares?

I can publicly post my username, gamertag or contact information online without having to fear being stalked or sexually harassed because of my gender.

This is a feminist classic argument that the world is more threatening for women than men. I.e That if a women is drunk she can get raped or killed, but that never can happen to men etc. This is, to most sane people, bullshit. The world is just as, if not more, threatening to men. Although the chances of being raped are lower (I hope), we can get into violent confrontations and get killed in many other interesting ways.

The fact is: If you publish your real name or contact information online you are entering an extreme sport. I do not do that, and neither should you. The world is filled with crazy people and you are unforgingly naive if you think you can post anything anywhere without getting into trouble. That kind of mentality gives me association to infant or child who stick a fork in an electric outlet. Its dangerous and if you are not a kid YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

The world is a dangerous place. It always have been and will always be. There are a million ways to die and if you are dumb you will get killed (Darwinism 101). Feminism want the world to change in such a way as reality is removed. That rules and laws of the world shouldn’t apply to women.

I will never be asked to “prove my gaming cred” simply because of my gender.

I have a funny story about that… No, not really, but its relevant. A woman (I guess, I never spoke to her) messaged me on xbox live after watching my video Let´s Play Resident Evil 5 Versus (with raging) saying that I suck at Resident Evil 5 (which is kind of true). The first thing I did was look at her gamerscore and I saw it was far lower than mine. That is what I replied “Who the hell are you to say I suck when you have far less of a gamerscore than me?“. We later became friends on Xbox. Then I deleted her cuz she annoyed me. End of story.

The point is: Being a gamer is gender neutral, but there still are guidlines. You don´t say someone is a worse player than you if they have a higher gamerscore, or longer playtime or whatever. That is rude!

If I enthusiastically express my fondness for video games no one will automatically assume I’m faking my interest just to “get attention” from other gamers.

Again… Who says this? Where does this idea come from? No one cares about your gender, race or sexuality when you play. All that matters is if you are good or not (especially in team games). The only time anything matters is if you yourself bring it up. If you, as a woman or a gay or a black person or whatever somehow want be to applaud you for doing what we all do. If not, NO ONE CARES!!!

I can look at practically any gaming website, show, or magazine and see the voices of people of my own gender widely represented.

I guess so. I wouldnt know to be honest with you. I rarely read gaming news as I think of it as mainly hype and nonsense. The only thing I care about is wheter or not Xbone will become backwards compatabile (outlook not so good) and I wouldnt care if a woman or a man kept me posted on that.

In fact, although I do support #gamergate, I also find it difficult to get passionate about it as I never read Kotaku (or whatever that newssite is called) or any other gaming news. What I do care about is the highly biased and agenda driven focus some game-“journalists” seem to have that wants to force game narrative to be more gay or female friendly. As I have always said; If you want a game to be more [this or that] make your own game. If not enjoy the games as is, if not, STOP PLAYING!

If you call yourself a gamer but hate everything about games, I don´t think you like games and you are not a gamer. I don´t care what politcal ideas are in a game as long as the game is good and the story interesting. If the game turns into some kind of soapbox for an -ism I probably won´t like it as I do not want to be schooled anymore.

When I go to a gaming event or convention, I can be relatively certain that I won’t be harassed, groped, propositioned or catcalled by total strangers.

I guess so. I wouldnt know to be honest with you. I have never been to a gaming convention. Perhaps I can´t even call myself a gamer then? Well, I was once I think. About 15-16 years ago. There was this Nintendo convention in a old gymhall somewhere in Norway that I was invited to. I remember playing Bubsy and thinking that game was awesome. I never got it though, and everyone who mention the game now seems to say its bad. I don´t know. I just enjoyed the first stage and wanted the game.

I can´t remember any cat-calling or anything else sexist there. I guess it was cuz no one was over the age of 12 and it was mainly boys. This was before games became such a big franchise it is today. Yes, I am old.

I will never be asked or expected to speak for all other gamers who share my gender.

Sometimes I ask the question: “You as [something], what is your view on [subject]“. I think even I asked this dangerous question; “You as a man, have you ever thought women aren´t gamers?” The answer I got was “No”.But I guess some people would call that sexist, homophobic, racist or islamophobic to ask a person, based on their background, a question related to something. I just call that “being inquisitive“. But we shall ask NO QUESTIONS and just listen and learn.

I can be sure that my gaming performance (good or bad) won’t be attributed to or reflect on my gender as a whole.

Oh, I hate when that happens. When I lose to a woman and she says “How does it feel to be beaten by a woman?“. I think “Well, I didnt think much about that until you brought it up” but I just laugh politely hoping she will go away.

The battle of the sexes aren’t one-sided. I remember a lot of sexism (I guess FemFreq would call it “empowerment”) in school, where a female teacher would say something like “Women are so much smarter than men” and the entire class would laugh in agreement.

My gaming ability will never be called into question based on unrelated natural biological functions.

My God, this list is long! I guess they are talking about the period? That special time in a woman´s month when she bleeds out her vag? Or hormons or something? I don´t know. Yes, its true that sometimes people joke about women or men´s biology. If you don´t like it then shut your ears. And please… Shut your mouth to. And yes, men´s biology will also be called into question. We may have a small dick, no balls, be a woman or gay too.

I can be relatively sure my thoughts about video games won’t be dismissed or attacked based solely on my tone of voice, even if I speak in an aggressive, obnoxious, crude or flippant manner.

Who takes a rude bitch seriously, be they man or woman? If anyone goes on a rant its always funny. The sex is irrelevant here. If a woman goes on a tirade we don´t dismiss her anymore than we would a man. If you get angry, you always lose. That is the rule. But it is still funny when people do get angry.

I can openly say that my favorite games are casual, odd, non-violent, artistic, or cute without fear that my opinions will reinforce a stereotype that “men are not real gamers.”

In my little gaming group of male, female, gays and whatnot I always like to say this little phrase “But isnt… isnt… isnt that a child´s game“. Oh, how angry they get. I never play “children´s games” as I find them boring. Angry Bird, Plants vs Zombies, Disney games, Mini Ninjas, Rayman, Space Chimps etc. But no, I wouldnt call into question wether or not you are a gamer or not based on your sex or your gaming preference.

I met an old guy who played Candy Crush Saga (I have never played that game) and I thought “Wow, that is amazing!” and almost felt we were both gamers. “But that is not a genderqueer or a woman! All we should cry about is women and queers of diffrent races“. But he was old! That was my point. I could have been an ageist instead. That is also a bad word.

When purchasing most major video games in a store, chances are I will not be asked if (or assumed to be) buying it for a wife, daughter or girlfriend.

How is this a woman’s problem again? How is this a PROBLEM? When I go to a store and want help selecting a gift I usally tell the person in the store TO WHOM I AM BUYING IT TOO. I want a game for my mother, my sister, my uncle or my brother, they like these types of games and have this age. That is the norm. You don´t let the store clerk guess who you are buying it to. If you do, you are an asshole!

The vast majority of game studios, past and present, have been led and populated primarily by people of my own gender and as such most of their products have been specifically designed to cater to my demographic.

I think that most games are made to a diverse group. They want as many buyers as possible. Infact, a game called Resident Evil 6 was critized for trying to appeal to the masses and not being for the very few. I love Resident Evil 6. In fact I wrote a defence for it on this very blog called “Resident Evil 6: A review and a defense.” as I don´t see the problem with a game being varied and trying to appeal to people from all walks of life.

Feminism has a black and white understanding of the world, also known as “dichotomy” in that if a game isnt made explicitly for women then women can´t enjoy it. If the game, gaming industry or game culture isnt gynocentric (another fancy word), then it is male chauvinist and misogynisc. This is an unhealthy point of view that is devisive and cause conflict. The conflict being #GamerGate and the anger we now see in gamer culture.

I can walk into any gaming store and see images of my gender widely represented as powerful heroes, dastardly villains and non-playable characters alike.

I am pretty sure women can do that too. But then the problem will be that they are too sexualized. And then we say men are also sexualized. And then they will say “power fantasy”. And then there is nothing more to be said. If a sexy woman can´t be a female power fantasy or “empowering” then I guess we can never win with feminist.

I will almost always have the option to play a character of my gender, as most protagonists or heroes will be male by default.

I am just gonna find a online list of female game protagonists and leave it att that. I guess FemFreq hasnt heard of google. Let´s see…

“Samus Aran from Metroid Series and Smash Brothers
Kitana From Mortal Kombat Series
Sonya Blade from Mortal Kombat Series
Mileena from Mortal Kombat Series
Lara Croft from Tomb Raider series
Ms Pac-Man from Ms Pac-Man arcade game
Mona Sax from Max Payne Series
Joanna Dark from Perfect Dark
Liara T’Soni from Mass Effect Series
Jill Valentine from Resident Evil series
Irileth from The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Claire Redfield from Resident Evil series
Shanoa from Castlevania: Order Of Ecclesia
Anna from Epic Battle Fantasy 4
Yuna from Final Fantasy X and X-2
Regina from Dino Crisis and Dino Crisis 2
Aya BreafromParasite Eve series
Konoko from Oni
Princess Zelda/Shiek from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Super Smash Bros Brawl
Sarah Kerrigan from Starcraft series
Maureen Fitzsimmons from Westward 2: heroes of the frontier
Kate Walker from Syberia Series
Victoria MCPherson from Still Life Series
Samantha Everett from Gray Matter adventure game
Kate Wilson from Hydrophobia
The Scythian from Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP
April Ryan from The Longest Journey adventure PC game
Heather Mason from Silent Hill 3
Aqua from Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep
Lili Zanotto from Psychonauts (PC Windows, Mac OS)
Annah-of-the-Shadows from Planescape: Torment
Faith Connors from Mirror’s Edge
The following characters from the Suikoden Titles: Odessa Silverberg, Lucia, Chris Lightfellow, Lilly Pendragon, Anabelle, Lyon, Chrodechild
Taki from the Soul series
Setsuka from the Soul series
Aerith from FFVII
Cortana from the Halo Series
Kat: Gravity Rush
Sarah Lyons: Fallout 3
Elizabeth: Bioshock Infinite + Burial at Sea DLC
Alis Landale from; Phantasy Star”

Geek feminism

I guess I could add some more just to contribute. As people may know I love Resident Evil and all of them have strong female characters. Not mentioned on the list was Sheva (RE5), Rebbeca (RE0), Ada Wong (RE4, RE6) Sherry Birkin (RE6), Helena Harper (RE6), Jessica Sherawat (RE: Revelations) and perhaps more provocatively Rachael Foley (REvalation) which I think is a fascinating character but I understand that many will find her “sexist” and “weak”. But as someone said: She is the first character in Resident Evil in a long time that showed actual fear of the events going on.

Also Chell form (Portal 1-2), Zoey (L4D), Rochelle (L4D2), Lilith the Siren (Borderlands 1-2), Maya the Siren (Borderlands 2). Those two from Dead Island (God I hate that game!). That was from my game collection. So the question is: Is this enough strong female characters you can play? If not, how many should it be and why?

I do not have to carefully navigate my engagement with online communities or gaming spaces in order to avoid or mitigate the possibility of being harassed because of my gender.

Will this list never END?!?!?! It´s important that they added “because of my gender“, cuz they know that most of us get harassed once in a while by others, but not always can we say it was because of our gender. I have been “harassed” because of my gender but I refuse to bitch and complain about it. And that is what this is; Bitching and complaining.

I probably never think about hiding my real-life gender online through my gamer-name, my avatar choice, or by muting voice-chat, out of fear of harassment resulting from my being male.

Do women? I know of… bah… I know off… my head hurts… I feel so faint. It never ends. I don´t want to debunkt anymore. I don´t want to. It just goes on and on. Okay… Let me try one more time. I don´t know any female gamers that has pretended to be male to hide their identiy. NO ONE! The only one I know of…jeez, I can´t belive I am writing this… the only example I know is of the opposite. Males who use female avatars.

When I enter an online game, I can be relatively sure I won’t be attacked or harassed when and if my real-life gender is made public

I don´t think women do that a lot either.

If I am trash-talked or verbally berated while playing online, it will not be because I am male nor will my gender be invoked as an insult.

Isnt this just rephrasing of the same argument?

While playing online with people I don’t know I won’t be interrogated about the size and shape of my real-life body parts, nor will I be pressured to share intimate details about my sex life for the pleasure of other players.

Then you havent played with gay gamers or female gamers who are attractive to you, or being the only male gamer in a chatroom.

Complete strangers generally do not send me unsolicited images of their genitalia or demand to see me naked on the basis of being a male gamer.

Then you havent played with gay gamers or female gamers who are attractive to you, or being the only male gamer in a chatroom.

In multiplayer games I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my “attractiveness” or “sexual availability” in real-life.

Then you havent played with gay gamers or female gamers who are attractive to you, or being the only male gamer in a chatroom.

If I choose to point out sexism in gaming, my observations will not be seen as self-serving, and will therefore be perceived as more credible and worthy of respect than those of my female counterparts, even if they are saying the exact same thing.

White knights!!!!! We call them WHITE KNIGHTS!!!! And we think they try to be PC cuz they think they will get laid by talking shit!

Because it was created by a straight white man, this checklist will likely be taken more seriously than if it had been written by virtually any female gamer.

You are all a bunch of fucking WHITE KNIGHTS!!! SJWs who want to change the world into some kind of horrible bland grey zone of indifference.

These benefits should not be reserved for men.

This list is not meant to suggest that male gamers are always treated well. Sometimes we are bullied or subjected to online nastiness, but it is not based on or because of our gender.

In order to make change first we need to acknowledge the problem, and then we must take responsibility for it as a community, so we can actively work together, with people of all genders, to dismantle the parts of gaming culture that perpetuate these imbalances.

All people, of all genders, must be treated with respect and dignity.

Together, we can make gaming better.
Together, we will make gaming better.

Oh, thank God its over. I didnt think it would take this long to get trough it. Jeez, they sure like to talk those feminist, white knights and SJWs. Give meg strength.

If I may be a bit conspiratorial here… Perhaps that is their strategy? To talk us to death. We are not allowed to talk back, but they go on endless monologues. I am tired now. I need to rest.

Blog 2.0 - So tired now. I guess I can´t complain. I did it valentary. Hey, the same can be said about female gamers.

Blog 2.0 – So tired now. I guess I can´t complain. I did it valentary. Hey, the same can be said about female gamers.

Haters gonna hate. But is it too much to ask to hate the right stuff?

1 Oct

So I am soon 30 going on 50 years old as I am writing this entry so the subject matter is perhaps a abit out of my demographic. I´ve just watched an episode of a youtube program called “Kids react to…“. Its a simpel show about watching children react to different kinds of trends etc. Not my kind of show, but I saw it non the less. The episode in question is this ->

Kids React To Rebecca Black – My Moment

Its a fascinating video to watch as children show their less innocent side. In fact we get to see them really hating the girl Rebecca Black to the producers off-cam laughs. I wonder… Where does the hate come from? My Moment is not a bad song. Although Friday arguably is a bad song (I find it catchy and funny in a naiv sort of way. A childish song.), but still the hate that it has gotten is beyond rational and reminds me why I am a misanthrope.

I am sorry but yet again I have to bash the “freethinker” movement cuz this hate is clearly secular but still very human. And the hate is real to. What is written online is not “ironic” hate. Its pure hate. Comments under the friday video follows “Oh wait is this even called a song? I feel like vomiting when listen to this. Fucking shit quality”, “Rebecca Black: why haven’t terrorists killed her? Because they need her alive to terrorize America with her ear-bleeding voice 😄“, “Bitch Yur Luckyy I Dont Know Yu Ill Fucking Numb Yur Ass And Fucking Torture Yur Ass (: P.S. No One Cares If Its Friday ,Instead Of Singing About It Fucking Kill Yur Self On Friday Then Yu Will Make Everybodys Friday Better 🙂“, “rebecca, kill yourself, plz, no one likes your music you suck” etc. etc. etc. This is not normal… let me rephrase this. This should not be seen as normal!

I know the internett is a harsch place wherehaters gonna hate“, “trolls are gonna troll” and voices of reason should be drowned by “fuck you”-s. But I still should be allowed to say that I hate those who hate just because its fashionable. I am not against hate. Its natural feeling like any other. People should be allowed to hate Christians, Muslims, Black people, White people, women, men, Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, Bill Maher, Socialist, right wingers, people who swear to much, the haters, the players, the game, atheists etc. Everyone should be allowed to be hated, but… Fashionable hate or “group hate” is just so effing stupid and sickening. Often in this “group hate” people try to overgo each other in being the most vile in the description of the person, group the cum [sic] together to hate.

My Moment is a nice song. It is not the nicest song ever written. Perhaps you think its “too commercial” compared to your avant garde music taste, be that SlipKnot, Madrugada, Morrissey, Bob Dylan, ELO, Björk, AC/DC, Ulver, Panthera or John Lennon, but the song is a decent song. And even if you hated the song Friday for being a badly song, badly written and generally stupid song, you can not say that My Moment is bad for its type of music. People who say this is blinded by hate, just like people get blinded by love.

Its like a ying/yang thing.

Did that make sense to you?

Oh, and in 2012 Rebecca Black is 15 (FIFTHTEEN) years old. Meaning, she is a CHILD. Being treated this cruelly by others should be seen as BULLYING by PC people and they should react to this like any other bullying. With contempt!

Blog 2.0 – Haters gonna hate, and love is all you need, and if you take a chance with me I will watch you burn.

Another picture making fun of atheist.

29 Sep

This blog is turning less of a blog and more of a tumblr page for every entry I make.

But I am very pleased with how this collage turned out. I think this collection of smiles (or perhaps more precisely smirks) really says alot. That said… My hobby at poking fun of atheist really seem to become an obsession of mine. I think I may have become addicted. Oh, well… Better than running the streets making graffiti or doing drugs I guess.

Blog 2.0 – Better than running in the streets doing smack and tricks.

The Atheist slayer; Song 4 – Autism and Apophenia

21 Aug

This song is short and in form of a poem and a picture:

Atheism.
Autism.
Google search
Apophenia.

Blog 2.0 – Its good to laugh.

Something happened the other day (There but by the grace of God )

18 May

A short story by AndyAce83

I was at the train station, a place used many times as a symbol of life changing choices. Sort of like a wheel turning or an arrow pointing in a direction or a comet in the sky. Not to say that there are any symbols in real life. «A=A», and that’s that. There shouldn’t be any meaning beyond the direct and observable. At least that’s what I had heard, learned and understood.

So I was at this train station waiting for a friend to arrive, but he was an half hour late. So I had time to myself where I could let my mind wander. I had taken shelter from the cold of the fall in a kiosk and satt on one of the benches placed there for people waiting for trains where I had a perfect view of the newspaper stand and all the news of Norway. There where lots of celebrities having problems that day, I recall. Lots of them talking to us mortals about their problems coping with success and the horror that may be.

So I was at this kiosk at a train station waiting for a friend while reading the covers of the newspapers when a lady enters. She was probably also looking for a shelter from the cold, and as she enters a fascination smell came along with her. The smell of death, the smell of urine, the smell of something that got hit by a bus, then died, then expelled bodily fluids, then resurrected and now wanting to feel the heat of civilized society. It was the smell of this woman.

The woman was between the ages of 30 and 60. It’s really hard to tell the ages of a druggydrunk, as she obviously was, but I would guess her age in that area. She stumbled around in this kiosk, not seeming to know where she was, and after taking a few slow laps around she decided to enter the toilet.

Now, I have to be honest; I can be a cynical and prejudice person, and I felt that she was now planing to take some drugs in there. I won’t say that my suspicion was confirmed, but she exited the toilet quickly when she saw the blue light coming from within.

It was time for a couple of lapses around the kiosk again for her, while I looked at her and everywhere else my eyes could rest. Not wanting to be a voyeur or some other pervert like that I also looked at the clock, the newspapers again, my mobile phone, the clerk in the kiosk, other people in the shop etc. But the woman between the ages of 30 and 60 was what my eyes where drawn to. She had a fascinating face, and a fascinating way of dressing. Her face was drawn, her eyes distant and unfocused, her clothes wet from what had to be rain from hours ago and unpolished make-up. The mascara was running down, and seemed to be better removed than retouched and her hair was clogged and thick with what my imagination would guess was dirt. And that smell…


She had finished her lapses and decided to have a sit down and of course that sit down was close to me. I have always thought of my appearance as kind, earth like and loving. That is why I think she sat down beside me, because I looked like a person who would and could care about her misfortune. I didn’t dare to stare, but I had my glances and when our eyes met I tried to smile to her. Not the kind of smile that had dollars in it, not the seller smile, nor was it a smile that was happy in any way. It was a smile I like to define as a sad smile, where I acknowledged her pain, but tried to say that perhaps there are still hope. Perhaps Richard Dawkins and his friends were wrong, that there is a plan and a meaning to all pain that we just don’t understand yet. I hoped she received and understood that that was what I was trying to express in my smile.

So I was at the train station waiting for a friend with a druggydrunk who smelled of piss only a few feet away. She looked slanted and worn, sick and cold and her nose was running. I wanted to help her, but I didn’t know how. A wonder grew in me of how this person could be so depressing in the land of Norway. The Utopia of the North! How could our loving welfare system let her be so in pain, while we seemed to cry for everyone else? The old, the immigrants, the young, the sick, but no one cared for her. WHY WASN’T ANYONE DOING ANYTHING?! And what could I do? I wasn’t a powerful or even a resourceful person, but I wanted to ease her pain that so clearly came to me through her sniffing, body posture and smell. I had by now taken my scarf from around my neck and tried to discreetly pressed against my nose to save me from her smell, and save her from embarrassment. She really had a horrible smell. We are taking about a urine smell that was not freshly pissed. It was like vinegar, and it’s acid smell burned my nose.

So I was at the train station waiting for a friend with a druggydrunk who smelled of piss only a few feet away while I had my nose covered with a scarf while trying to give her a smile of ease when the lady leaned towards me. She was going to ask me something and that question was

«Do you have a cigarette?»

I could have been insulted by that question because smoking is dangerous, and did I really look like a smoker? With all the associations that came with such a claim? Did I look older than my age, with sickly white skin and yellow teeth? Who was she to say that I was the kind of person to have such a filthy habit?

I did, though, have that filthy habit and decided not to take offense and rather give her what she needed. I gave her two cigarettes, instead of the one she asked for, saying «So you have one for later as well». I also asked her if she needed a lighter, and then I gave one to her, even after I saw her having one in her crocked and cutended hand. But as she took my cigarettes, I felt one of her fingers touching my thumb and although I didn’t show it out of respect to her, I felt sickly repulsed by that.

Don’t you judge me! You don’t know how she looked and smelled. She smelled of old piss and looked like a alleyway hooker! There is a influenza plague now, if you haven’t heard! So as she left to take her cigarettes, I went to the blue lighten toilet to wash my thumb from sickly whore-piss-druggydrunk smell stain. I washed it good with soap and let in run under running water for quite some time before I felt that the thumb was clean again.

I entered the kiosk again looking over to the clerk and he seemed to smile at me. The smile was not a seller smile or a smile like the one I used but a smile of acknowledgment that I had done something nice for that woman. I smiled shortly back, more out of politeness than that feeling you get when you have done something good. What was that word again? Pride. I did not give a smile of pride. Who knows of pride in the west anyway. It’s all dark, depressing, decadent and dirty. There is no pride left to take, even when your nice to a whore. It’s all bleak and grey like the fall.

Not thinking, but feeling this thoughts, I felt the need for a cigarette myself and I exited the kiosk and went outside to indulge myself too my vice. The weather was fitting for the fall as it had a grey sky, and it was cold as hell. Not the kind of «cold as hell» where there is ice and frost, but the real cold of hell. It’s like its not cold enough for the body to react to it and therefore you start to freeze faster because the cold is snicking it’s way inside you when you look at the dead trees and the black wet asphalt from the rain hours earlier. That’s the real bone chilling cold, because that’s the only cold that reaches your bones unless your dyeing from it.

So I started to freeze instantly, and I lit my cigarette fast so I could enter the heat again. And there she was again; The pissing woman. Circling around me like a vulture. A sickly, pathetic and tragic vulture with a freshly panhandled cigarette in her mouth. The old or young lady closed in on me and I feared the smell would again hunt me, but the smell was gone. Taken from her by the clammy fall air.

I looked at her again with my ambivalent loading pity and wondered how I could reach this woman and help her without being dragged into the mud alongside her. Should I have called the police, or the ambulance to come get her? She was clearly out of it and in great pain. The need and scream for help was there, but I couldn’t do much. This person, I sort of knew, would not find me calling the police or ambulance a way of helping her. I knew, sort of, that the only thing she would perceive as help was money in the hand or a free cigarette in her mouth. Anything else, would be a rude intervention.
So I just stared at her, with that smile that now felt more goofy than anything else and I had nothing to say.

I was at the train station, a place many poets would use as a symbolic place for change and choice. Here there were no change. I was at a train station and so was she, but there were no link between us. She was already dead, and there was nothing I could say. No choice or change that could make a difference. Just a goofy stare of empathy from me, and a blank one from her.

We were standing a few feet away from each other but we were miles away, weren’t we? And she leant towards me, and than she said:
«Thank you»
I said:
«What?»
«Thank you for the cigarette»
«Oh, that’s nothing», I laughed shyly
«No, you saw me and you gave to me» she said looking into the black wet asphalt.
«I just did what anyone else would have done», I said more hopefully than truthfully.

I felt an urge to take my hand on her shoulder and tell her that there were still hope. To hell with her smell! To hell with hygine and personal bounderis. This woman needed my warmth. She was cold on what a poet could claim were more than one way. What the cynic atheist would say didn’t matter because everything is just nothing. No meaning beyond void.

But I didn’t care, I was filled with Godly love. I would care for her! I would…

Anomietopia – Bow down to the rain.

I didn’t touch her, but I said that there were hope. I asked if she needed my help and she said with a low voice «Yes». A voice that gave me associations with a ghost whisper, death by embarrassment and the unknown beyond. I called an ambulance, and it arrived shortly. I gave her my number and demanded from the drives that they would care for her. «Give her the best treatment available», I think I said.

And then they drove away, and I felt pride! A sad, but still very present pride. I had done good! A good deed beyond human definition. It was good because it was good. I knew that God was pleased, and that he loved me. And her. And everyone! From the queer dyeing of aids to the atheist scientist who dedicate their lifeves to post-modern misery. God loved everyone and he had a plan for everyone. A reason for starving children in Africa freshly raped, to the liberal socialist who wanted prayer and hope out of the schools.

THERE WAS LOVE! THERE WAS PEACE! THERE WAS MEANING!

Nah, I’m just kidding.

As she lent towards me, she tried to steal my wallet. I looked at her and asked polity of what she was doing. She looked up at me and moved slowly away. I walked further out into the cold weather of fall and death. Turned too her who was now inside the warmth of the kiosk again. She looked at me, and I looked at her and she said «Ifhn flanatlaus», or some other gibberish, but I understood what she was saying. She said «I wasn’t trying to steal your wallet, but to show you that it was hanging out», but she didn’t have the strength or pride to bother to lie any more. So gibberish was all that she said.

Not Blog 2.0 – Diamond of positivity!

Atheist. So stupid.

18 Feb

Oh, sweet atheist. How many blog entries you have served me. The only other true inspiration is PC people and often it´s the same people with different subject. I also love how you atheist have this compulsive need to try to serve people, but it´s always you who get F´ed in the A.

Why? Here´s some clues for the clueless.
1) Few atheist have a sense of humor (they believe smugness is the same),
2) no understanding of what is human
3) preaches theories as fact to people who know the difference.
4) the semiophobia of everything that shows an ounce of being “holy”,
5) the meme-ish re-gurgle of quotes and slogans from better, more bright atheist,
6) the belief that atheism is the only logical conclusion, when it´s far from logical as we observe the universe,
7) the often hypocritical defense of Islam as some sort of victim to the big bad Christian religion,
8) the complete misinterpretation of history that in sum is Christianity kept us down.
9) the need to make every argument be about “logic” in the most narrow of sense, often with the need to draw in some Latin phrase in hope that the other debater hasn´t heard of wikipedia,
10) the neurotic need to deny and ask for proof and the psychotic melt down that follow the quid pro quo.

I mean the list is endless. So many atheist are dull argumentative people who just think that to say “this is stupid” is debunking the opponent.

Blog 2.0 - I drew this entry out of my ass. Unlike atheist who draw their arguments from other´s ass.