Why are they like this?

[Lone Wandering Courier]

Why is it that catholic larpers on the internet just can't accept on your word the only reason you aren't religious is simply a lack of empirical evidence. They always have to spin it back on you and make it about how "oh you just hate god" (how does one hate something one doesn't believe exists lmao) or "you only say that because you are an evil do-er"? Like, no I just don't see any evidence and never have.

Why are they like this? (besides the fact they live in mommy's basement listening to nigger music and eating mcdonalds tendies)

 

[Mortin Shart]

Probably because accepting dogmatic religion into your life doesn't lead to understanding foreign concepts.

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

That's not true. I just need to make a single claim that any religion says something which is backed up by facts or evidence to disprove that retarded assertion. I think that's not what you meant, but c'mon. Don't make it so easy.


Here's a random kinda-related 4chan screenshot that I find amusing.
View attachment 4296972


The very nature of peer-reviewed research has unfortunately thrown the credibility of 'scientific discoveries' into disarray recently. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for new scientific discoveries. However, in increasingly many fields the social-media nature of how certain peer reviewed articles gain more repute than others is making it increasingly difficult to discern what is even 'scientifically true', let alone actually true. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, peer-review in academia has more and more become a 'you reference me and I'll reference you back' kinda deal, to the detriment of most.

I remember seeing a few seemingly intelligent atheists in the early days of youtube going around 'owning the Christians with facts and logic', and almost every single one of the ones who stuck around are now incapable of even telling you what a man or woman is. That includes such former big names as AronRa and Matt Dillahunty.

This is one of my least favorite things about trannies, and the hypocrisy of my fellow atheists. The trans religion corrupts the purity of science and scientific empiricism by introducing unscientific claims and religious dogma, and also starting with conclusions then desperately seeking supporting evidence rather than starting with a hypothesis and rationally seeking a conclusion through testing. Atheism and trans ideology are fundamentally incompatible, but modern liberals are trying to make them work together. They don't. "A man in a dress is a woman" is an easily disproven claim, scientifically. Secondary sex characteristics, the existence of the Y chromosome, genitals... that's why I call it a new religion instead of just a political belief: insistence on an idea being true without relevant scientific evidence to support it.

Neckbeard me if you must, but my skepticism of religion has served me well in avoiding troon indoctrination.

 

[Smug]

This is one of my least favorite things about trannies, and the hypocrisy of my fellow atheists. The trans religion corrupts the purity of science and scientific empiricism by introducing unscientific claims and religious dogma, and also starting with conclusions then desperately seeking supporting evidence rather than starting with a hypothesis and rationally seeking a conclusion through testing.

It's worth keeping in mind that if you want to be pedantic about 'purity of science', there are no real 'conclusions' in the scientific method. It's simply a case of 'this is the most accurate model we have to describe the phenomenon occurring'. Gravity is the phenomenon of acceleration towards Earth at ~9.81m/(s^2), except we know that has long since been disproven - for an example (i.e. our improved model is that all mass attracts all other mass, it's not an 'earth' thing).

Atheism and trans ideology are fundamentally incompatible, but modern liberals are trying to make them work together. They don't. "A man in a dress is a woman" is an easily disproven claim, scientifically.

You don't have to be scientific or rational to be an atheist lol. Atheism covers non-theism of all kinds, including the retarded ones.

I think you're confusing atheism for empiricism, or rationality in general.

I call it a new religion instead of just a political belief: insistence on an idea being true without relevant scientific evidence to support it.

I agree that it is a religion. I'll go a step further: they've taken a watered down 'Morally Therapeutic Deism' version of Protestantism, removed all ritual, and substituted in the word "Equality" for "God" to use as reference to 'ultimate moral authority'.

By calling their beliefs an 'ideology' instead of a 'religion', an atheist can achieve the cognitive dissonance required to - without a shred of irony - rebuke their fellow atheist as being a potential heretic with the question "Don't you believe in equality?!"

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

It's worth keeping in mind that if you want to be pedantic about 'purity of science', there are no real 'conclusions' in the scientific method. It's simply a case of 'this is the most accurate model we have to describe the phenomenon occurring'. Gravity is the phenomenon of acceleration towards Earth at ~9.81m/(s^2), except we know that has long since been disproven - for an example (i.e. our improved model is that all mass attracts all other mass, it's not an 'earth' thing).


You don't have to be scientific or rational to be an atheist lol. Atheism covers non-theism of all kinds, including the retarded ones.

I think you're confusing atheism for empiricism, or rationality in general.


I agree that it is a religion. I'll go a step further: they've taken a watered down 'Morally Therapeutic Deism' version of Protestantism, removed all ritual, and substituted in the word "Equality" for "God" to use as reference to 'ultimate moral authority'.

By calling their beliefs an 'ideology' instead of a 'religion', an atheist can achieve the cognitive dissonance required to - without a shred of irony - rebuke their fellow atheist as being a potential heretic with the question "Don't you believe in equality?!"

Yes, technically atheism encompasses all non-theistic belief systems, but it used to be commonly expected in atheist communities that being an atheist meant caring about scientific accuracy, even though that wasn't an actual requirement. That's certainly no longer the case now that the rainbow cult has their "girldicks" in atheism. Atheist communities are now religiously rejecting those they believe to be transphobes, without a hint of irony. I recognize that being an idiot doesn't disqualify you from being an atheist, but goddamn do they not give one single fuck about science anymore. Maybe I should coin the term, "TEA: Trans-Exclusionary Atheist." Wish the acronym was a little cooler though.