Saturday, October 22, 2011

Why do so many of the Atheists I know not have any kids?

Since you have no faith you obviously see yourself as just another mammal in which the only purpose of your existence is to survive and reproduce. In that case, shouldn't you knock off the "I'm so enlightened and modern" attitude and make a big pile of kids? You should be making one a year at the very least since when you die and become the worthless fertilizer you believe you're destined to become, no one outside of your immediate family is ever going to miss you. Shut the fuck up and FUCK! You apparently have no soul so after your last breath you're done. Might as well leave some kind of legacy.

I suppose it's not really fair to say that Atheists have no faith. They believe in science, don't they? Believeing that it's proof against the existence of God. They believe it because it's been chronicled in books and taught to them by appointed authority figures who they believe to be much more knowledgeable than themselves. Their own experience doesn't have to have anything to do with this belief. They just accept it because they've been told to and that's good enough for them. That's a form of faith, is it not?

I like it when Atheists claim not to believe in God because they've never seen any proof of His existence with their own eyes or some other such bullshit. There were, what, 50-something prophets in the bible? That's not that many and each of them served a unique purpose and none of them did it for the fun. If there are any prophets in existence right now it's probably safe to say that you're not one of them. Nobody gets to see or hear God, dumbass. Especially not just so He can prove himself, I'm pretty sure he's got more important things to do.

30 comments:

  1. I wouldn't want to contribute to overpopulation.

    Science doesn't say anything for or against the existence of God, but scientists often do. It's worth noting that the Vatican has supported and furthered science for hundreds of years, and a great number of successful physicists are members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

    As for belief, faith, non-belief, I think it's all bullshit. I learned of a loose "system of belief" called apathetic agnosticism. That's how I feel: I don't know what's out there and I don't give a shit. It never has and never will impact my life in the mortal coil in any way. It may or may not impact my death, but once I've died I am no longer among us, regardless of whether I just rot in the ground or whatever else may happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice one! It is worth noting that many top scientists do believe in God in some sense of the word, and the ones that don't are usually weirdos or are properly very smug about themselves.

    In fact, everyone who I've met or who has appeared on television who says out loud that they're an atheist is a smug cunt. They almost always have very poor understanding of what science is really about, have not done any "science" since high school (if they go to university they usually study a worthless arts degree like global social international anthropological communicational homosexual media studies) and they do not understand the basic problem of induction nor do most of them understand the work of Karl Popper and it's problems.

    Furthermore, many atheists refuse to pop out more sprogs because their atheism hinges on their hedonism, using the self-professed triviality of their own existence as an excuse to fuck over their dead grandparents who worked so hard to feed their kids and meanwhile they run up huge credit bills since it's inconsequential to them in the long run.

    Or, they do the exact same thing without claiming that their existence is trivial but instead claiming that all moral beliefs held by any generation prior to the mid-twentieth century exist solely because of the "control" that Abrahamic religions (except the Jews who are always being mistreated, which explains exactly why they tend to hold strong economic positions throughout much recent history) had over the people who have made countless revolutions against non-religious governing bodies but some how are "suppressed" to the point that in truth they have never successfully denounced religion except when replacing it with another.
    Hence the atheist denies all honest morality by claiming it is part of their religion, sorry I mean "not religion", since all current religious beliefs are without a shadow of a doubt Christian or Muslim.

    A theist may be deluded, an agnostic gives an honest view, but an atheist is a cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They have a tendency to want to force others into their beliefs while accusing religious people of doing the same and taking offense at how wrong that is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's fun to talk about lifting and stuff, but fuck atheists.
    In fact, I can't name any genuine atheists from western civilisation who are also top lifters or athletes: clearly faith helps.
    Consider then the possibility often promoted by atheists that faith helps only as faith in itself, that the religious focus towards some supreme being or entity is only there to give us humans something to look up to, something to give cause and reason outside our own control.
    If God is just an artifact of the human condition, a mental construct that helps us get by, then you are still an idiot for maintaining atheism.
    This is why they cling onto their beliefs about morality, science, ethics, whatever they think of, and cannot see the truth (like their mirroring their supposed enemy as you say) and cannot understand the things they choose to hold dear to them: To show a logical fallacy in their arguments is to them registered much like an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who believes He does, and this restricts their capabilities in the world by leaving them unconsciously less open to new ideas.
    To put forth an example, I can come up with a postulate that I hope remodels physical expansion of the universe and when I work on it and it turns out it's wrong it's frustrating, but I don't face a moral dilemma, unlike these guys.
    To put forth an analogy, when a normal guy feels heart-broken he feels it in his heart. Emotion may seem to come from electrochemical processes in his brain, but ultimately part of his brain gives him the feeling that the sensation is from the beating of his chest and his brain as he knows it carries on with the thinking.
    Now these guys, they get heartbroken and they decide that the only "logical" thing is for them to start having a fucking headache.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's no bigger group of hypocrites in general than Athiests. Put a gun to any of their heads and most of them will probably start praying.

    Much of their schtick is just an excuse to be immoral. A rationalization.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Most atheists are not having kids because most educated people in the West are not having kids. It just happens to be that a good proportion of educated people are atheists.

    Canada's population would be shrinking if it weren't for immigration. Same story in many Western European nations.

    You should be more upset with feminism. Taught women to spend their prime fertile years getting advanced education. Then once the females obtain a career it makes it harder to have kids.

    So atheism really has nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have my own view on religion. It's my own thing and mostly consists of all of the good parts of other religions. So it's probably more a code of conduct.

    I don't want kids. Neither does my wife. We have seen the face of humanity and realised it's not worth it to bring up kids in the god forsaken world (pun intended). Besides the both of us having faily good genetics and a very good lifestyle (that is medically speaking), we let the ratio dominate the feelings.
    I would be a shitty father anyway, better to save up on all of their frustrations by not having them.

    As far as atheists go, I know alot of so called atheists and they have at least two to three children. One of them is a decent lifter. I don't think those sorts of things have anything to do with eachother.
    Unless the fact that as a lifter you will probably knock up your misses much faster due to better semen and higher testosterone levels. But even that us pure broscience.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did you know that there are actually different kinds of feminism now? They all have different views on what feminism should be about and they all think the others are traitors or stupid or whatever. So feminism not only encourages women to hate men, but to hate most women also.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Women all hate each other instinctively anyhow. Phil Hartman's character on News radio said it best: "You show me a woman who isn't jealous of another woman and I'll show you a man."

    Which brand of feminism were the Spice Girls into?

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a load of turd MacCharles. Typical north American fucking swine bucket true believer religious prick. Maybe they don't have kids because they have a strong sense of purpose? Ever consider that? Maybe because not believing in monkey ghosts allows freedom in how you want to live your short time. Freedom to choose, there's something foreign to religion. Ahaha! Discovering real purpose through rational contemplation of life? Maybe 'they the childless athiests' can contribute more to society than just a few stinking vermin dropped from the lint trap? Hate to try and diminish your feelings of 'purpose' Glenny but you and your kids are nothing but fertilizer. That's your fucken purpose. Hell, what the fuck is 'purpose' anyway? I mean really. What a bullshit post. I can't believe you've correlated god and purpose in a positive way. fuck I'm flabbergasted, honestly MacCharles. Move than 1000 years of courageous individualists and atheists moving from superstitious nonsense and religious nihilism and Wankwizzle MacCharles declares children and gaseous invertebrates give us 'purpose'. Fucken write a book on that one...fucking disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hahahahahah.
    You know what would really give me freedom? Not giving a fuck about anything. If I could rape a child and not give a fuck, think how liberated I'd be. Fuck this American religious bullshit forced down everyone's throat, I believe in reason: Give me one rational argument that is based on true assumptions that tells me I it is wrong to rape a child. After all, they're only fertiliser, and not fertile, so I don't risk spreading my seed before I, myself, am rotten.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look at McCharles going deep! I believe you're confusing causation with correlation, however. Atheism no more condones hedonism than does any other religion, and in some cases probably less. Hedonism is illogical. Therefore, it's not rational. Therefore, a true atheist wouldn't adopt it as a lifestyle.

    Atheists are massive hypocrites, I'll agree, but no more so than evangelical religious adherents. They're both loud, opinionated, wildly uneducated, and completely intolerable, in my book.

    As to the not fucking bit- I guarantee they're fucking- they're just careful about bc and mopping up the mess if bc fails. Though I'm not an atheist, I can say this is why I have no kids of which I know. Pregnant? Not if my $400 has anything to say about it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. One last bit- I would venture to guess childlessness stems more from solipsism than anything else. I know it does for me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Self-centeredness, I could see that. Being responsible for anyone else means less time and energy to devote to oneself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Exactly. Given the wild-eyed enthusiasm for Facebook, it's astonishing the gears of the world don't grind to a fucking halt. Christ almighty I hate that shit. I want to stab every bitch I see with a fucking iPhone... i.e. all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some athiests and some religious people are closed minded, hypocritical and uneducated, and some are not. Some atheists might be hedonists, some christians are sluts. I don't think pointing the finger at all non-religious folk is really the right thing to do.

    PS- this is Dread from RT. Found ya.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, oh. Also I do not have a religion and have 1 son and a daughter on the way, to keep it within the point of the post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, I had a retort written here that took me at least an hour to type including getting up and down constantly for the kids, wife, dog, etc, and when I tried to open google in another tab it opened it in this tab instead ansd I lost the post. I'm not typing it out again so you guys will just have to stay angry and defensive. It probably wouldn't have changed anything anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes that's right, Christians and atheists are polar opposites and so atheism is always to be compared to Christianity as the perfect juxtaposition. It is nice that you recognise Christianity as the one true faith.
    But never mind that. What has happened, Dread, is that you have said you "do not have a religion", but you have not said that you are an atheist, and these are not the same thing. Your point about people claiming to be Christian and acting otherwise is a good match up to the point about people saying they deny religion and acting otherwise and gives a nice view. But if so many Christians are lying to themselves, then why is it that they really do have kids?
    What you have also done is said not to point the finger at a group. What if someone said "Why are so many prisoners black?" or more on-topic "why are so many women who have had unprotected sex getting pregnant?" The probabilities of going to prison if you're black and getting a woman pregnant if you have unprotected sex with her are both less than a half, but it doesn't mean it is a bad question.
    "Sometimes she doesn't get pregnant and sometimes she gets pregnant artificially. I don't think pointing the finger at unprotected sex is the right thing to do."
    Regardless, congratulations on the family.

    Jamie, your religious interest is a curious example: I get the feeling that you believe in Thor or whatever because you want to and probably only when you want to.
    The notion that hedonism is illogical relies on some idea of what it means to have something wrong about a lifestyle and for this it seems to me that valid ways forward must not be logical in the usual sense but must instead be axioms in themselves, by this I mean that a moral code cannot be fully logically derived
    so under what morals (in your own view) is hedonism illogical?

    Glen and anyone else that comes this way, I think the Spice Girls are into this kind of feminism:

    http://www.thenewsvault.com/cgi/news.pl?t=1258

    ReplyDelete
  20. Because black people commit more crimes. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You mention child rape yet the catholic (and other) churches weren't mentioned once. What about other god loving lunatics around the world, child marriages, child genital mutilation. Frightened of your own tails because your not allowed to talk about rubbing nasties because the all father will spank you for being naughty. Must be those high & mighty religious ideals that are the basis of so called 'moral codes'. I think most people aren't child rapists because their brains function right. But no - thankfully gods on the case with 'moral codes', because otherwise I fear Blobb might be all over the kiddies. Hey wait, what about the kiddy fiddling priests?
    You can frame your crap arguments with big words and convoluted sentences all you want.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Blobb- I really don't care enough about the metaphysical world to form a strong opinion one way or another. I think it's possible that all of the gods ever worshiped exist on some plane. I don't pray beyond the occasional "toast, boast, oath", which isn't much of a prayer. In times of strife I'm more likely to resent the concept of a god than pray to one, so the "no atheists in a foxhole" thing doesn't even apply to me.

    As for the antithetical nature of hedonism and atheism, atheists by and large champion science over all else. The pursuit of pleasure over all other things is illogical, they'd posit, as it generally arrests scientific progress. In terms of ancient philosophy, the Stoics and the Epicureans were more or less perfect examples of the two groups- the stoics denied themselves anything that gave them strong emotional responses, whereas the Epicureans engaged in virtually nothing but.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This place got pretty ridiculous since the last time I came through, hahahahaha.

    anon- Your argument is as extreme as anything I've ever seen. The existence of a moral code is more or less innate to all religion and philosophy. It has no meaning for your innate moral code, except if you do lack one. People like that, we call sociopaths.

    Jamie- I find it interesting that you compare atheism and hedonism to Stoicism and Epicureanism. I've heard Epicureanism called a form of hedonism, so on that point it's apt, but I'm a little confused as to why you think that Stoicism is analogous to atheists. Atheism is a religious/antireligious belief, rather than a life philosophy, so it seems to me that any atheist could deny or indulge in either or both scientific or hedonistic pursuits. I would also question that scientific progress is arrested by the pursuit of pleasure, mainly based on the fact that Einstein apparently got more pussy than John Holmes.

    Glen- I wouldn't ascribe all lack of children to a self-centered nature. That's like ascribing all shootings to the victim being a douche. As great as that would be, it's not the case; there's hundreds of possible reasons for each.

    ReplyDelete
  24. My opinion of Atheists is based entirely on the ones I know in real life. All of whom are apathetic manchildren who seem to be afraid of anything even remotely resembling personal responsibility or maturity. Most of them don't even vote and if you ask me, the reason they don't have any kids is because they'd rather get drunk and high and jerk off to Internet porn than make any attempt to get laid.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dray - I don’t think it's extreme. You may consider it extreme, but that doesn't mean that it is extreme.

    Religions were probably the primitive attempts to ascribe meaning and order to existence. The moral codes we ascribe to religions in many cases, such as murder make sense. Other rules are just insane. But the faithful are rather selective aren't they? This brings us to my main point. Religious people, by and large, all through history have been very average at putting religious moral codes into proper practice, when they impede natural human impulses.. I.e. they’ve planned murder with impunity in the most horrendous ways in spite of (in the Judeo-Christian way) some scripts or whatever telling them not to.

    Extreme hypocrisy in religion, basically. But then atheists are also extreme hypocrites in most cases, aren't they? Because they're humans. And humans always deceive themselves, because of their concepts and words and so called 'moral codes'.

    So to say if you have a faith, you're automatically a fantastic responsible person is very simple minded at the least - the evidence says otherwise. i.e. someone in my family is a professor of anthropology, an atheist and has 2 children and a successful happy family life. He chooses to engage in political discourse, is very well read and doesn't impose his ideas on anyone else. So automatically I know your generalization is false.

    Nor do I accept that being an atheist precludes one from comprehending and experiencing the luminous. I think there is a transcendental realm of experience, and this can be had without subscribing everything to a gaseous invertebrate and religious idol - something like Zazen, the rejection of all belief, as a means to off and on freedom. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    So, some Hebrew ravings that got out of control for a number of years - (you would have to be a lunatic or joking to believe in a 'true faith' anyway)...it's just madness. And to subscribe morals to one faith, and then say without faith you can't have them anymore? And then the inconvenient barbaric morals in these books, what do you do with them? Just throw them away? That doesn't make sense either if you say you MUST have religion as the basis of 'morality'.

    I don't hurt people because it makes sense not to. I won't go to jail, I won't experience retaliation, and everyone can enjoy themselves. I don't need god to threaten me into submission. I like those ideas, they make sense, even if religion spawned them.

    As I 've stated before people can say they have morals because of religion and still be murderous raping maniacs. So any presumption that religion is a requirement for good behavior towards others does not in any way add up.

    These are not problems that god has dictated the answer to, but problems that humans have been trying, with many failures, to collectively sort out for a long time.

    Glenn - Maybe it's the caliber of person you're around? Do you live in government housing areas or something? they listen to Dimmu Borgir and smoke dope all the time, and think they and they alone are fucking awesome? Their supposed atheism serves merely as a reflection of their own biases , dislikes and personality and not of objective fact or sound philoosophy.

    I know lots of 'atheists who from what you've said, in your mind would be considered 'mature and responsible.'

    So I don't get these sweeping generalizations. There practically and philosophically false and serve as a reflection of your own biases and dislikes more than objective fact.

    In short, the human is usually a hypocrite religious moral or not.

    BTW I don't vote, those bastards are fucked.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So... You suggest we have no freedom unless we have no god. You made reference to paedophile priests, however a priest's child abuse is an action he takes contrary to what he thinks God wants him to do (if he is really Catholic) i.e. he acts freely.
    You say that people can have moral beliefs without believing in God. You say you don't hurt people because you're worried about imprisonment and retaliation and people not enjoying themselves. Does this mean that if you could get away with it you would rape a child after all, but only if they enjoyed it?
    For a thought experiment, what if there was a "magic" pill that made a child forget what happened fro an hour and you could tell them anything happened and they'd believe you (you can even tell them Jesus walked across water). And let's say that there's, I don't know, a machine or something not human or alive that's watching you and if you rape this child and give them the pill you are $1,000,000 richer or something. Something that will let you "enjoy yourself". So do you rape the child?
    No, of course you don't, but you can't say why not ("I'd feel bad about it" doesn't count) where as the Catholic can say "I'd go to hell".
    Or, is your school of thought of a genuine Buddhist nature, in which case you can call Karma "God" and call the Buddha "Jesus" and start calling yourself religious after all?
    Your scope is still somewhat limited if religion means worship of a gaseous invertebrate.
    On the other hand, your hypocrite stuff's probably true.
    On the third hand, consider from your apparently upper-class existence that the majority are living among drug users and support-frauds and a view which is given on reflection by interaction with a majority is a generalisation but not a bias.

    btw the One True Atheism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

    ReplyDelete
  27. Most of the criticisms of religion I hear tend to be criticisms of people's use of religion to manipulate other people rather than the religion itself. Not all, but most.

    Also, I find that a lot of Athiests harbour a resentment towards God and religion in general because they somehow feel fucked over by life. Understand that your life is yours to do with what you want, if you're not enjoying yours, well, too fucking bad, do something about it.

    Then there's the complaint that the ten commandments or whatever go against human nature. This is a retarded criticism because if they did fit nicely into what everybody was thinking, feeling and doing already, there would be no point for them to exist. Think about it.

    Then you get people who hate Christianity in particular because apparently you can be an scumbag all your but still go to Heaven in the end by accepting Jesus and being "born again." This is both true and false. What you need to realise is that faith can't be faked. Not when it counts anyway. So if a person claims to have found and accepted Jesus and is able to fool most of the otehr people around him, he still won't have fooled God.

    Saul is a good example from the bible of a person who was a total motherfucker his whole life and then saw the light, so to speak, so these types have been around right from the beginning and have probably been judged the same way the entire time. Most critics of the bible haven't even read it anyway.

    Nothing is perfect, no system is perfect, no person is perfect. I doubt if any religion is exactly right because it's impossible for any human being to properly interpret. It's beyond our scope. You can either believe or not believe but you can't pretend either way because in the end you'll only be fooling yourself.

    For what it's worth, I know some pretty fucked up Christians too. Whatever. At least they've got the balls to have chosen a side.

    A lot of teenagers choose Athiesm as a form of rebellion. Believing in God is not cool, and being cool is important.

    It actually makes no difference to me what anybody's religious beliefs or opinions are. You guys obviously feel a lot more strongly about this than I do. Picking each other's posts apart line by line and shit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I just reread the above and noticed a few typos and grammatical errors. There are also a few spots where I left out entire words altogether. Hardly the first fuckup I've ever made and probably not even the last one I'll make today. Somebody should point it out though. He'll get to feel smart for a couple of minutes. I would do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 'Since you have no faith you obviously see yourself as just another mammal in which the only purpose of your existence is to survive and reproduce'. I'm genuinely curious to know what a 'believers' purpose is then in having children, if this is what (according to you) Athiests believe. Note, I say genuinely. I'm not having a go.

    ReplyDelete