RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
How on earth have you equated the above to me saying loads of people saying something "all the time". I'm talking a few thousand people, who have uttered the same phrase, despite living in distinctly separate locations. That surely warrants a mention?
Or, perhaps you're just embarrassed that you didn't know the difference between Islam and the ideology known as Islamism.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 06:29 AM by Teedub.)
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
(09-08-2013 06:28 AM)Teedub Wrote: How on earth have you equated the above to me saying loads of people saying something "all the time". I'm talking a few thousand people, who have uttered the same phrase, despite living in distinctly separate locations. That surely warrants a mention?
Or, perhaps you're just embarrassed that you didn't know the difference between Islam and the ideology known as Islamism.
So you have personally talked to and heard thousands of people say it?
09-08-2013 06:56 AM
Teedub
International Playboy
Posts: 5,010
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 80
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
No, obviously, I don't mix with many fundamentalist Muslims. I was merely pointing out that the creed of fanatical Islamism is a death cult, as evidenced by that quote, but more importantly by the fact they see Martyrdom via suicide bombing et al as the highest honour.
I'm pleased we're back on to debate and not name calling by the way.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
(09-08-2013 05:10 AM)Acute Angle Wrote: Samseau says that atheism is a "death cult", whereas many atheists would decry the number of people killed in religious wars. This is an interesting examination of those two poles:
"So who has been the worst throughout history: atheist regimes or religious regimes? Obviously the big numbers come from the 20th century superpowers (China, Russia, Germany) so the answer depends on how you classify those. And this is where the meat of these debates is usually found, splitting hairs on which regime is atheist, which is merely secular, which is non-Christian and thus fair game to be called atheist. Hitchens points out that Stalin's government had all the trappings of religion, including Orwell's totalitarian theocracy, and thus it's merely a play on words to say that it was not religious. Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist monk who grew up to execute Buddhist monks, along with anyone else he could lay his hands on. Whole books have been written on the occult underpinnings of Nazi Germany, the symbology of the Norse gods, to say nothing of the claims that Hitler was a Christian, Hitler was a Jew, and his own writings expressing the kinship he felt with the Muslims. A favorite counterpoint raised by Christian debaters is that these despots practiced Social Darwinism and were thus atheists by definition. In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle."
This is an issue I've thought about a lot. What I've come up with is that people are more willing to act and act with conviction for positive beliefs rather than negative beliefs. When I say positive and negative, I'm not talking about good or bad but rather beliefs that have content as opposed to beliefs that are the negation of something. People are willing to act in the name of Islam or Communism because both are systems with positive beliefs - in that they command it's followers to act in a certain way to achieve a certain ultimate goal whether it be the creation of some earthly paradise or entrance into a spiritual one.
Atheism on other hand is a purely negative belief. It is defined completely by what it does not believe in. You can only imagine the enthusiasm that people will have sacrificing themselves for a belief like that. Or hell just the enthusiasm for doing anything related to it. A big reason why atheism organizations don't have as much pull as religious ones is that most people just aren't going to care about their non-belief to do anything about it. I think a big reason why the whole atheism sub-culture seems to have so much anger and resentment in it is because the only people who are going to actively participate in any sort of system based on purely negative beliefs are bitter, angry people. Think of the MGTOW people who constantly bitch and complain about females and dating instead of just moving on. So ultimately the reason people don't kill for atheism or really do ANYTHING in the name of atheism is simply because atheism doesn't provide motivation for any action. People are willing to act in the name of Christianity or Communism or Environmentalism or Democracy - generally they aren't going to fight for being not Christian or not a Communist unless they have some sort of positive belief where being anti-Christian or being anti-Democracy or whatever is a by-product of that system.
People are willing to put themselves on the line for beliefs - whether they be secular or religious. And the ultimately motivation or root of ANY belief is not based on rational considerations but simply will and yes I include both religious AND non-religious beliefs under this assertion.
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 10:59 AM by Wutang.)
09-08-2013 10:56 AM
The following 2 users Like Wutang's post:2 users Like Wutang's post Acute Angle, LeBeau
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
Wutang, good points.
Years ago a comedian joked about the coming of Methodist Jihad (holy war). The concept was ludicrous, therefore funny. Methodism is possibly the most quietist of the mainstream Christian religions. Similarly, secular affiliations are very variable in their propensity to generate violent behaviour.
09-08-2013 01:10 PM
Samseau
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 14,309
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 287
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
Atheism is a death cult, because it's adherants don't reproduce. Also, without some sort of religion there are no common bonds to hold people together so they end up killing each other for whatever reason.
Hence the lack of any atheist civilizations or cultures.
LOL @ anyone who thinks that the only wars are the ones that have been recorded down in history books. History is evidence of an advanced civilization, something that only religious cultures have produced. So when people use history to support the claim that religions have caused the most wars, they do not account for all the wars that barbarous peoples have had but never written down.
The fact that the religious actually record their wars is evidence that relgions work.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 02:38 PM by Samseau.)
09-08-2013 02:37 PM
Teedub
International Playboy
Posts: 5,010
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 80
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
^ Japan is atheist and it's population is ridiculously overpopulated, so I think that's incorrect. Overall though, yes, atheists have less children, although I think that's more due to a higher standard of living and materialism in countries where atheism is widespread, rather than atheism itself.
"Also, without some sort of religion there are no common bonds to hold people together so they end up killing each other for whatever reason."
Look at all the killing done in the name of religion though. This entire Middle East issue, which has been going on for so, so long, is all due to minor ideological differences of different sects of the SAME religion.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
09-08-2013 04:19 PM
The following 3 users Like Teedub's post:3 users Like Teedub's post TheSlayer, soup, GameTheory
placer
Chubby Chaser
Posts: 463
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 9
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
Quote:This entire Middle East issue, which has been going on for so, so long, is all due to minor ideological differences of different sects of the SAME religion.
I think the entire Middle East issue comes down to the fact that Islam encourages a society where a few men are having sex with the majority of the women, and many men are left without pussy, resulting in greater all-around violence.
I oppose feminism and I oppose the breakdown of marriage for the same reason I oppose Islam. The end result is the same: More sexually frustrated men and more violence.
Game is only a band-aid to keep men getting laid while our society breaks down.
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
(09-08-2013 04:19 PM)Teedub Wrote: ^ Japan is atheist and it's population is ridiculously overpopulated, so I think that's incorrect. Overall though, yes, atheists have less children, although I think that's more due to a higher standard of living and materialism in countries where atheism is widespread, rather than atheism itself.
"Also, without some sort of religion there are no common bonds to hold people together so they end up killing each other for whatever reason."
Look at all the killing done in the name of religion though. This entire Middle East issue, which has been going on for so, so long, is all due to minor ideological differences of different sects of the SAME religion.
If you have been paying attention, Japan is looking forward to a large population decrease. Declining birth rates along with the rise of the "grass-eaters'. Men who shun sex.
Second the middle east is more complicated than that. It has lots of oil and natural gas. Which means it is being targeted. The US and the Saudi's have been training and funding extremism for years. They have overthrown secular governments that have been tolerant and relatively peaceful.
Would it be perfect without our interference? Probably not. However it is definitely much worse because of it. We are willing to plunge them into the dark ages to control the area.
09-08-2013 04:57 PM
Teedub
International Playboy
Posts: 5,010
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 80
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
Saudi Arabia is one of the most hypocritical nations on the planet. The poor and lower-middle classes have to conform to a 7th century version of Islam (I.E The original, pure Islam) and the upper-middle class and elites go on trips around the world and drink, smoke, fuck etc. The men only, of course. That's a place where a little bit of first wave feminism I would actually welcome.
So regarding the Dark Ages, they're pretty much doing it themselves, willingly.
On a broader level, you are right though, Western interference is a problem. However, I am also a hypocrite, I oppose the wars but then I consume all the oil etc that is taken from those places. It's more complicated I suppose than I'm really, all of us in fact, are in a position to have a cast iron opinion on. Unless of course you are highly educated and highly informed on diplomatic relations etc.
However, Kazakhstan also has huge oil and natural gas, yet they're a complete nothing in the world in terms of what you about it. Religion in the Middle Eastern countries we all know of, is a massive factor. Their hatred of Israel and Jews started long before Israel was even created. They hate Jews because the Koran tells them, to hate Jews.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
09-08-2013 05:10 PM
The following 2 users Like Teedub's post:2 users Like Teedub's post soup, Quintus Curtius
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
^ Coincidentally, a lot of the U.S interest in the M.E is the fact some of those countries were going to renege on using the dollar as their fiat currency. I think that's the correct term anyway.
Lets face it, if the West really cared about importing goodness and democracy, they'd be invading African dictatorships on a daily basis.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
(09-08-2013 05:18 PM)Teedub Wrote: ^ Coincidentally, a lot of the U.S interest in the M.E is the fact some of those countries were going to renege on using the dollar as their fiat currency. I think that's the correct term anyway.
Lets face it, if the West really cared about importing goodness and democracy, they'd be invading African dictatorships on a daily basis.
You are correct. Every country in the region that has moved away from or tried to challenge the petrodollar, have been crushed.
09-08-2013 05:22 PM
Teedub
International Playboy
Posts: 5,010
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 80
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
Not for debate, but just to inject some humour into this thread:
George Carlin is one of my favourite comedians; Really fucking smart, really funny and I'm sure he'd be cool with someone whether they were religious or not.
P.S. I too, pray to Joe Pesci.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
09-08-2013 06:31 PM
iknowexactly
International Playboy
Posts: 5,420
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 102
I thought it was interesting. Is there really a connection between atheism and consumerism?
Movement atheists will deny any connection. Technically, being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you a vapid consumerist.
Which is true, but irrelevant. How will people respond? If you remove God from their life, what will they replace it with? An enlightened virtuous few may replace it with something honorable.
But what of the masses? Without the fear of God's wrath to keep them in the pews, will they merely decamp to the couch and the television? Without God to tell them gluttony is a sin, will they be abstemious?
(As for the rest of what you read, tl;dr, you should practice tightening up your writing.)
Gifted people are less religious than average, in some pretty extensive studies done over decades.
But gifted means over 130 and iq over 120 doesn't affect success much unless you're talking NObel Prize level inventiveness.
It's more social skill, robust health, probably height etc.
RE: "Religious people are more red pill than atheists"
Under the pretense of "religious people are more red pill than atheists", that is true. From the old testament until somewhat recent times (I'm going to say up until 1800s), you can see the guiding hand of men within religious structures that kept women and losers in check, managed harems, and started wars while celebrating a lot of masculine virtues and creating societal orders. Giving women rights, property, or power back then was practically unthinkable.
In modern times, religious conservatives very quickly and easily discuss inherent gender differences between men and women and can bring up multiple examples from real life and scripture supporting these claims. From a perspective on sex and gender, they're usually better informed (it's hilarious that Christians finally get something right). What is ironic is that while feminists talk about "celebrating differences", by giving credit where it's due, differences actually are celebrated within traditionalist spheres by being recognized and adhered to.
On a lighter note, the evil vicar is a humor video, but it makes a good point in how sloppy and open minded people have gotten with their beliefs these days.
I've been something of an atheist since I was a little kid. If god existed and cared about our opinions, he would send us a sign or message of his existence that is not open to interpretation. Since this sign or message has not yet happened, god is either not real or doesn't care, therefore none of us are likely to interact with god, so belief or nonbelief is not terribly important. There are better things to do than waste time trying to find answers to questions that are fundamentally not capable of being answered with any certainty.
Most of these reddit atheists use atheism as an emotional crutch to be superior to other people with their "logic" when they'd be better off getting off the internet and going to a gym. I don't know what it is about religious people but they seem less antisocial and participate a lot in community events, even though philosophically they are likely indifferent to a lot of what constitutes Catholicism or whatever.
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2013 08:21 PM by Hades.)
09-08-2013 08:00 PM
The following 1 user Likes Hades's post:1 user Likes Hades's post Teedub
Sherman
True Player
Posts: 1,603
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 16
I thought it was interesting. Is there really a connection between atheism and consumerism?
Movement atheists will deny any connection. Technically, being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you a vapid consumerist.
Which is true, but irrelevant. How will people respond? If you remove God from their life, what will they replace it with? An enlightened virtuous few may replace it with something honorable.
But what of the masses? Without the fear of God's wrath to keep them in the pews, will they merely decamp to the couch and the television? Without God to tell them gluttony is a sin, will they be abstemious?
(As for the rest of what you read, tl;dr, you should practice tightening up your writing.)
Gifted people are less religious than average, in some pretty extensive studies done over decades.
But gifted means over 130 and iq over 120 doesn't affect success much unless you're talking NObel Prize level inventiveness.
It's more social skill, robust health, probably height etc.
"Red pill" is as vague and difficult to define as God, liberal , or conservative.
Religion was a way to explain things before science started making much more sense.
The catch is, sex is not rational, it's physical and here and now.
Sex only makes sense for your offspring. You die whether you have kids or not. You are just a train your genes are riding.
So smart people have fewer kids, get divorced less and probably over 130 IQ get fewer women
Shock revelation! New cultural Marxists study from the school of social engineering reveals that Sir Isaac Newton was an idiot.
"Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian. He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible."
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 2 users Like Wutang's post:
