The Simpsons Atheists

As opposed to
>you don't believe in hebrew mythology so you're a troony, beta, cuck, redditor, søyboy

nobody is saying that. they’re demonstrating a link between the two

They vote for who gives them the gibs.

I know fedoras weren't right wing, you idiot, but their behavior is literally identical.

NPC/normie meme. Try again.

What the frick are you talking about? The idea of "euphoria" and why it was mocked was the smug, self-righteous narcism of being above the mass of sheeple, same way /misc/ feels about NPCs. The sentiment of the two memes is the same.

Ideologues are cancer. GG you did it.

I posted actual data, you can do the hypothetical baseless claims all you want

No I didn’t. I posted a study showing that the vast majority of atheists are pro gay. Your “widespread phenomena” is you just saying some random shit with nothing to back it up. You aren’t too smart are you?

that second claim you’ve posted zero evidence for, i’m just meant to accept this happens all the time. post some data

>UHHH SOURCE
You're becoming a parody of the people you hate

What's the point of these statistics? This doesn't validate the truth of israeli mythology. So what do we do with this information, promote a lie so the public hangs trannies or something?

I understand that. However, I'm still not going to be believe in Genesis because I'm also not a leftist.

so?

what are you doing? at least i’m pointing out directly correlative trends and quantifiable data. and again, you can argue with this same line of logic indefinitely. every era in human history, every religion or worldview, has given in to the one which succeeded it. either everyone’s cucked or nobody is.

It’s the same thing the nazis did and they slowly eroded the homosexual ideology of the weimar republic which held everyone under sway until they could consolidate power at the right moment. A fringe minority of people enacting violence is going to get destroyed and publicly ostracised quickly, and associating with their views is going to outcast you. You need to mentally prime people over a long period to associate certain ideas with the destruction of their people and society so that popular support can be replied upon at the opportune moment.

Please demonstrate how I proved I am a narcissist, don’t just state it without qualification. And let’s not pretend it isn’t just you replying to me yourself while we’re at it. I think it’s incredibly ironic to call anyone a narcissist while simultaneously pathologising any dissent to your own view of reality.

great job evading 99% of the post because you don’t have an argument, moron

what you are describing is subjectivity and not narcissism. reflecting on yourself and finding a set of communal symbols to best communicate your inner life and relate to other isolated minds that can’t express themselves directly isn’t being self obsessed. it’s a fundamental part of human psychology we have engaged in for a long time. you can say there’s a correlation with encroaching self obsession and the association of various “badges” of ideology in order to bolster one’s self concept and elevate it, or draw attention to it, rather than an authentic expression of their natural impulses, but narcissists simply exaggerate this idea, they didn’t invent it. there is a fundamental gap of privacy between human minds that will never be overcome. we compartmentalise aspects of how we think and feel and associate them with a communal ism as a form of collective we use to overcome that privation and participate in a shared mental existence as far as possible. if you meet a stranger, you cannot know them truly, their thoughts and ideas. but suddenly that stranger starts speaking your language, and you can assume certain things about him which make him vaguely mentally analogous to you. he comes from your nation- suddenly we have a few guarantees of similarity in life experience and ways of perceiving reality that make you feel like you can know and interpret what that person is easier. you are both of the same religion- now we know broadly that we have the same metaphysical construction of reality and similar emotional ideals. we are no longer two isolated minds but two minds that have common ground to communicate. i get what you’re saying, but you’re putting the cart before the horse and making moronic assumptions to justify calling me a selfish egoistic prick for not agreeing with you.

>a pleasing scale model of reality
everyone fundamentally has to do this and your brain is actively wired to represent reality to you in that manner. you’re saying narcissism is a cartoonish exaggeration of this faculty but really that’s not saying anything, since narcissism is just an exaggeration of any other mental faculty since it balloons them all by worshiping it’s own ego. any fundamental psychological attribute of a human brain is present in a more extreme form in narcissistic people, so again it’s putting the cart before the horse. you’re describing a symptom more easily visible in modernity rather than a cause

Yeah just go ahead and ascribe a mental flaw to me which handwaves any disagreement I have with you. It’s much easier than considering the fact that people can be reasonable and simply have a different world view.

Black person you are incapable of experiencing anything other than yourself. everything you understand is represented, ie, re-presented to you by an organ which simplifies and systematises the information it receives for you. humans are model making animals because our brains impose certain models onto the sense data we receive in order for us to survive. time to re read kant

you're escaping into this babble as deflection. "i can't be a narcissist because, from a certain point of view, aren't we all...?" nope. we're talking about specific behaviors you either engage in or you don't, and i assume you do considering you are reacting so poorly to having them described. do you spend time and effort trying to convince strangers online that you are a certain kind of guy and not a different kind of guy? that's classic narcissistic behavior. deal with it however you want.

>For one thing, I thought you didn’t accuse anyone
all i did in the post you're responding to is you to do some introspection about what you do and act accordingly. that's not an "accusation." here's that weird victimhood thing again, like when you were imagining i was calling you names.

>You’re the one hyperfocusing on me and what I am when literally in none of these posts have I brought attention to myself
my dude this entire stupid reply chain is entirely about you, because you read the general statement in

>Literally what's the point of this facade of RETVRNing back to Christ
narcissism, same as anything else. nobody is RETVRNing to shit, just as the leninist twitter troony is not actually starting a communist revolution. you just put together a narcissist persona out of these empty signifiers and then play little internet identity games with other people with their own fake personas. the facade is the point. you can be the cynical dipshit that knows it's all fake or the sincere moron that thinks it's for real but either way it's just a decadent postmodern game of symbols.

, felt personally wounded and decided you really need to convince me, a random stranger, that you totally 100% aren't like what i described, apparently unaware that you are proving the opposite in the process. i'm not going to engage with the pseudo-philosophy babble because it's just there to waste my time, you are whatever you are and you're the one that will have to live with it.

that all sounds very nice but it's just babble. the use of political memery online is not a protocol for establishing communication, it is the communication (of identity). the narcissist fundamentally doesn't care what's in anybody else's head, it's not real to him, and this is reflected in how the "communication" goes, for example the whole idea of "trolling," making the other side "seethe" and so on. if THAT kind of person hates my guts, this reinforces my identity as THIS kind of person. like, when a troony seethes at you it makes you "based" (or, from the other side: when a "chud" calls you a slur that makes you a brave survivor of transphobia). the purpose is not communication, it's validation of identity, that's why interactions that lack any communicative effect are nevertheless repeated over and over again.

>to justify calling me a selfish egoistic prick for not agreeing with you.
it's funny that you have, in a conversation about narcissism, decided to take my post personally as if i was calling you names (?) over your views (???). i was making a general point about how people online behave, mentioning RETVRN guys and twitter commies, but i don't even know which one you took offense over. like, how could my motivation possibly be to suppress your views when i don't even know what your views are? i didn't even call you or anybody else a "narcissist" - i described "narcissism" as a behavior, and yet you come at me with this whole litany of names i supposedly called you, like "selfish egotistic prick." what? when? like, you don't seem to care about the point i'm making about online behavior, you only care about how it reflects on you. what's up with that?

>You are tacitly insulting someone
perhaps, but when your mind takes a general statement about online behavior and converts it into an extremely specific personal insult ("calling me a selfish egoistic prick," a thing that never happened) this suggests you are not really interested in what things mean but only how they reflect on you, which is a common sing of... it's at the tip of my tongue... starts with "n"...

>You also outright called that poster
not me. my posts itt are

>Literally what's the point of this facade of RETVRNing back to Christ
narcissism, same as anything else. nobody is RETVRNing to shit, just as the leninist twitter troony is not actually starting a communist revolution. you just put together a narcissist persona out of these empty signifiers and then play little internet identity games with other people with their own fake personas. the facade is the point. you can be the cynical dipshit that knows it's all fake or the sincere moron that thinks it's for real but either way it's just a decadent postmodern game of symbols.

the point is not who is or isn't "ill," the whole culture is ill - the point is to confront how you actually relate to these concepts. narcissism isn't some generic "take your meds" insult, it describes a specific way of relating to the world, namely one in which you construct a fake identity and then try to convince yourself it's really you and get others to play along with it through all kinds of manipulation and posturing. if you weren't' a narcissist before you started using the internet, and it's likely that you were because a lot of people are, you're going to be PERFORMING narcissism by participating in it, because that's how it's built. what is your twitter profile if not a constructed identity? why do people do "takes" about some current controversy if not to position themselves relative to it, and therefore signal something about themselves and receive validation? all the concepts floating around in that space - christianity, communism, progressivism, tradition - are going to be by default understood in terms of one question, the narcissist's question: "am i the sort of guy who...?" thus they become tokens in a game.

that all sounds very nice but it's just babble. the use of political memery online is not a protocol for establishing communication, it is the communication (of identity). the narcissist fundamentally doesn't care what's in anybody else's head, it's not real to him, and this is reflected in how the "communication" goes, for example the whole idea of "trolling," making the other side "seethe" and so on. if THAT kind of person hates my guts, this reinforces my identity as THIS kind of person. like, when a troony seethes at you it makes you "based" (or, from the other side: when a "chud" calls you a slur that makes you a brave survivor of transphobia). the purpose is not communication, it's validation of identity, that's why interactions that lack any communicative effect are nevertheless repeated over and over again.

>to justify calling me a selfish egoistic prick for not agreeing with you.
it's funny that you have, in a conversation about narcissism, decided to take my post personally as if i was calling you names (?) over your views (???). i was making a general point about how people online behave, mentioning RETVRN guys and twitter commies, but i don't even know which one you took offense over. like, how could my motivation possibly be to suppress your views when i don't even know what your views are? i didn't even call you or anybody else a "narcissist" - i described "narcissism" as a behavior, and yet you come at me with this whole litany of names i supposedly called you, like "selfish egotistic prick." what? when? like, you don't seem to care about the point i'm making about online behavior, you only care about how it reflects on you. what's up with that?

you're escaping into this babble as deflection. "i can't be a narcissist because, from a certain point of view, aren't we all...?" nope. we're talking about specific behaviors you either engage in or you don't, and i assume you do considering you are reacting so poorly to having them described. do you spend time and effort trying to convince strangers online that you are a certain kind of guy and not a different kind of guy? that's classic narcissistic behavior. deal with it however you want.

>it’s literally the exact opposite in every way
No it isn’t you larping moron. Have you actually read their manifesto? It’s literally just secular humanism. In the literal tweet that started this they are engaging in a moral b***hing contest that has nothing to do with self liberation or abandoning morality. This is why you need to be so vague in your posts, notice how you don’t actually justify any statement but just say it (because you are unintelligent). Literally go and read their gay little manifesto if you don’t believe me. Theirs is absolutely nothing in it about eschewing empathy or morality in favour of whatever nietzsche larp you are claiming it is. It’s all about “respect” and feminism and anti racism and trusting the science. Anyone who is actively moralising on twitter over rape is not the sort of overman you are desperately claiming they are. They’re very much post christian humanists who maintain the entire moral structure built around a God they don’t believe in. There is NOTHING in any of their writing suggesting they are what you’re saying they are.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you're at least a shitty troll.

you realise your average BLM supporting troony is a secular humanist? they aren’t nietzscheans you stupid homosexual

so they're just like polcel tradlarpers

>bruh look at this random tweet by a random person! oh man you're so btfo

...

mah homie if any of those had been official church of satan tweets you might've had something.

otherwise you're just old man screaming at cloud.

great job evading 99% of the post because you don’t have an argument, moron

Or I have correctly identified your extent of understanding of the concept of narcisim doesn't go beyond what the google dictionary definition tells you.

>educate me then.
Not my job, not my problem. you're about to further prove you're a narcissist

Yeah, that you don't realize how expecting randoms to bend over backwards for your benefit isn't narcissism.

This is how knowledge works, you either have it or you don't, and if you enter a situation where its provable you don't have it, it is no one else's responsibility to ensure you have it.

screaming, crying, and shitting yourself because no one will "help" you is definition narcissism.

>rebuttal

Your mistake is thinking there's anything between us, simply because you're seeking attention.

>thirdie befuddled by the idea secular humanism and racism are diametrically opposed

sad

the satanic temple isnt real satanism, its just a political advocacy group. you wouldn't catch the church of satan dead checking vax cards lmao

Made up by an edgelord in the 60s, but yeah. They freely admit it's made up because they consider all religions made up.

You aren’t stating a fact you mouthbreather. You are claiming their morality system is somehow nietzschean when it couldn’t be further from that.

what would you call the opposite of a slave then? and besides your semantic moronation there, you’ve yet to demonstrate they aren’t “slave moralists”. again, how is this not slave morality?

>...encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits. The Satanic Temple has publicly confronted hate groups, fought for the abolition of corporal punishment in public schools, applied for equal representation when religious installations are placed on public property, provided religious exemption and legal protection against laws that unscientifically restrict women's reproductive autonomy, exposed harmful pseudo-scientific practitioners in mental health care, organized clubs alongside other religious after-school clubs in schools besieged by proselytizing organizations, and engaged in other advocacy in accordance with our tenets.[33]

they are advocating respect and empathy for the weak and disenfranchised and articulating a moral system that fundamentally comes from their own precepts of what is respectful and nice and what is mean and bad- nothing originating within yourself but them. i’m starting to realise you’re just a midwit who doesn’t understand any of the terms you use

when did I say that? you keep commenting on reading comprehension but it should be pretty blatant to everyone ITT that you have none. slave morality is morality that comes from without, external to you and diminishing to your own ideation and desires for the sake of others. that’s exactly what that satanic creed I posted is.

i wish i could see what happens to the world after there aren't any white people left to hold it together.

>that isn't religion's fault.
its a religion that tells kids they're evil if they don't accept literally every aspect of it without question.

and going "yeah well you could've learned it more gooder" doesn't really change anything about his life.

>haha people misinterpreted the bible saying you'll go to hell for not following it to mean you can't question it therefore it doesn't say that I win praise jesus

anon you don't have to be like this.

you should stop defaulting to bad faith arguments to try to convince others/yourself that you're not following gibberish.

bad faith would be ignoring how the vast majority of people interpret your scripture because you have a super special interpretation of it.

>bad faith argumentation intensifies

So now you’re pretending every Christian (or at least the vast majority) has your exact interpretation of scripture.

Not to mention that the Bible itself contradicts things like evangelism, the Catholic Church in general, etc. hell, the existence of the different sects is absolute proof that most Christian’s have different interpretations of scripture.

Reminder: it’s bad faith to ignore what is self-evident because someone doesn’t provide you with a Wikipedia link validating it.

We’ve hit levels of bad faith that shouldn't be possible

See

if you're just going to talk to yourself you don't need to give me (you)s to do it.

And ya know, most of the time when someone thinks they’ve cracked the code of the Bible, they gather followers, head out to a place where lots of land can be bought cheaply, build a compound, then come up with a reason why only they should be impregnating all the young/fertile girls

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means

>insult
There you go, being all narcissistic again

>I’ve been staring at the thread hitting F5 therefore you were too!

Narcissism. Plain and simple.

You getting proven wrong isn’t bad faith dipshit

Here's what I'm saying:
If it is so obvious that most Christians believed this, prove it.
All I'm asking for.
Find me proof that a majority of Christians believed that if you questioned The Bible you went to hell.
If the claim relies on the fact being so obvious, then find proof of the fact.

And once again:
Concession accepted.

Oh now it makes sense.
You need to go back.

>I'm an oldgay not a Redditor!
Oh okay see now I totally believe you. 😉

>nobody ever questioned the bible before r/atheism was created

Again, sorry. That sucks.
But I can't disregard cars because I got in an accident one time.
Either the subject itself is flawed, or it isn't.
The environment around it can be related to the subject, but it isn't the subject itself.

I haven't found a contradiction that couldn't be explained. I've seen almost every repost image this site has to offer that listed contradictions, and the explanations fit.
And the real world conquest of Christianity, at worst, involves death at the most basic level.
As does the automotive industry.
So unless we really miss Rome for some reason, the differences you listed aren't really that different result-wise.

>There are contradictions!
>"I've heard good explanations."
>It's pilpul!
Ah. How original.