No matter our differences, we can all agree that belligerent midwit atheists are the most insufferable of all cunts.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (132)
sorted by:
looking back 20 years (i'm well older), atheism was always a shit take. even for the 140+ IQ crowd, the hottest take you can legitimately defend is a stochastic agnosticism, and if you're not deep into applied statistics (e.g. robotic vision), you're still half baked, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about in epistemology.
i was doing relativity at fucking 14 years old and there's till too much shit that's not even explanable. i don't mean explained. i mean explanable.
the nuts part is taking enough redpills to realize what is and isn't correct in each of the major religions. yes, religion is a mechanism of societal control.
and every society that does not control female hypergamy and guarantee that 50%+ of beta males will get theirs... well they get crushed by those societies who do.
That's the part you can never get through to most atheists. When you acknowledge that maybe there isn't a god, but that belief in one is good for a lot of people and that that social control is a far better methodology than control through government tyranny.
Like, Religion figured out how to prevent people from dying of pork parasites without having to commit extinction level genocide on pigs or having to explain to people things beyond their ability to comprehend.
If I recall correctly, I think Dawkins himself came to this conclusion or something similar... religious faith is important to us on a biological level, and without 'God' people will find something to place faith in.
Quite literally the devil you know vs the one you don't. And he said this before the coof came around and proved him right.
Even actual retards can come to that conclusion a decade+ ago with the evidence directly in front of us, watching people create cults and ideologies and brands to fill the hole religion used to. Heck you could see it literally happening in real time in the 60s to the hippies.
Dawkins was an arrogant prick who always has to be controversial and "right." So of course he would change sides after helping damn us all to ruin.
That's straight out of Jordan Peterson's Jungian rap about the intersection of religion and psychology.
In my younger days, I went from believing to uncertainty, but Pascal's wager seemed like a fair assessment of the situation, so my behavior didn't change much.
What is the cost to me of living a good life, even if it doesn't give me a thrill?
I often forget about that. Maybe I should go back to church.