8======D

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1444282601470.jpg (33.65 KB, 640x485, 128:97, 397059_10200125508682463_3….jpg)

8======D Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 05:36:41 9fe8c6 No.11631

>tfw Atheists are so stupid that they believe that faggots are born that way.

>tfw Atheism is just another religion but for faggots.

Atheist=Gaylords

sage 10/08/15 (Thu) 05:51:49 18bab3 No.11633

File: 1444283509330.jpg (106.96 KB, 600x600, 1:1, image.jpg)

In this pic: statuefag's childhood

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 06:04:33 9723e5 No.11634

File: 1444284273839.jpg (307.15 KB, 444x4000, 111:1000, dont-masturbate-jesus-univ….jpg)

>>11633

>this is what statuefag actually believes

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 12:06:29 4d12d5 No.11638

>>11631

Hey just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean I like faggots.

It hardly takes an act of God to see them as sick freaks, now does it?

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 21:39:03 9fe8c6 No.11640

>>11638

If you don't like faggots, how come 80% of your religion consists of faggotd queers?

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 22:04:11 0ad291 No.11641

File: 1444341851289.jpg (42.09 KB, 268x267, 268:267, 1346813510964.jpg)

>>11640

well god's not watching so you know

why not

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 22:11:25 4d12d5 No.11642

>>11640

I'm an atheist. Work on your reading comprehension.

I don't believe in God, but I don't want anything to do with homos.

Sue me.

Anonymous 10/08/15 (Thu) 23:29:39 9a7b93 No.11643

>>11640

>Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

- http://elitedaily.com/news/world/homophobic-men-aroused-gay-male-porn-surprised/

>Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates. The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense fear of homosexuals.

- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

Is there anything you'd like to tell us, OP?

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 00:32:04 4d12d5 No.11645

File: 1444350724205.jpg (13.44 KB, 267x300, 89:100, freud cartoon.jpg)

>>11643

Oh boy.. Freudian bullshit.

If you don't like pedos you secretly want to be a pedo.

If you don't like spiders, you secretly spin webs and eat flies.

If you don't like Muslims, you secretly bow to Mecca.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. esp when it's in my mouth, mother fucker." Sigmund Freud

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 04:31:32 a1e2bc No.11647

>>11645

If you are gay then you are gay.

If you hate gays then you are gay.

So If you hate homophobes then you are also gay.

There is no way to win.

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 05:08:15 4d12d5 No.11648

>>11647

And if you use this argument you're a homophobe because he are trying to insult someone by saying they're a faggot.

Which I guess makes you a self-hating homosexual.

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 05:24:38 18bab3 No.11649

File: 1444368278802.jpg (44.64 KB, 220x324, 55:81, enugh.jpg)

>>11648

And you have anger issues because you've got daddy issues.

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 10:10:38 3ba192 No.11652

>>11645

Listen, you don't get to dismiss studies just because you don't like their conclusion – you need to back your shit up with facts, not claim it is “Freudian bullshit” and pretend like you've made some great point. That's not how this works.

>Abstract

>The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 14:52:17 4d12d5 No.11653

File: 1444402338289.jpg (54.6 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, laughing troll.jpg)

>>11649

And I'm your daddy because you're angry.

Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy?

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 15:04:33 4d12d5 No.11654

>>11652

There is much wrong with the methods in that study. Here's a few quick thoughts.

1. It's composed of psych undergrads. Is that representative of the population?

2. The" homophobes" were people willing to admit it on a liberal college campus. How many people find homosexuals disgusting but don't say anything because it's unfashionable to think that? Esp. Students on a college campus.

3. The put instruments on their genitals (hardly natural) Perhaps an attractive female research assistant was hooking up their junk.

4. The research sample was composed of people who would let someone hook up instruments to their junk (How many normal people would volunteer for that?)

The social "sciences" research studies are often crap.

61% of Psychology Studies Are False/Cannot be replicated

http://www.cchrnewengland.org/2015/09/01/61-of-psychology-studies-are-falsecannot-be-replicated/

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 16:14:38 3b45f1 No.11655

File: 1444407278742.gif (428.91 KB, 500x281, 500:281, Ricky having a laugh.gif)

>>11654

I will refrain from commenting on your “quick thoughts”, which are just that: your own speculations, based on nothing but your own musings.

I will, however, comment on your last statement and your “source”;

>The social "sciences" research studies are often crap.

>61% of Psychology Studies Are False/Cannot be replicated

>http://www.cchrnewengland.org/2015/09/01/61-of-psychology-studies-are-falsecannot-be-replicated/

What kind of organization could this CCoHR be then? Let us look at Wikipedia:

>The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) is a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to "eradicate abuses committed under the guise of mental health and enact patient and consumer protections."[1] It has been described by critics as a Scientology front group that campaigns against psychiatry and psychiatrists.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz,[10][11][12] and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[13]

>The organization holds that mental illnesses are not medical diseases and that the use of psychiatric medication is a destructive and fraudulent practice.[14] The organization links psychiatry or psychiatrists to school shootings, mass murders, eugenics, and terrorism.[15][16][17]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

So, in your desperate hunt for a source to try and discredit the study I linked to, you have decided to back up your own musings using an anti-psychiatry organization run by the Church of Scientology!

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 16:58:43 4d12d5 No.11656

>>11655

You really want to believe that sucking strangers dicks at truck stops is normal and healthy don't you?

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 17:07:57 4d12d5 No.11657

File: 1444410477843.png (1.14 MB, 1600x1600, 1:1, question burden of proof.png)

>>11655

So you dismiss my questions without answering them?

Do you think a group of Psych undergrads who are willing to have instruments attached to their genitals while they watch porn are representative of the general population?

I reckon that's a fair question, anon.

It's not something you could just ask random people on the street to do.

The methodology is an issue here.

And attacking the source of an idea, rather than refuting the idea itself is the ad hominem fallacy.

Perhaps the people with your study have an agenda as well. (nearly everyone in the social sciences does)

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 18:29:43 3b45f1 No.11658

File: 1444415383581.png (39.52 KB, 700x700, 1:1, ackchyually.png)

>>11657

So, now that you got that pathetically childish outburst (>>11656) out of your system, you are back for round two?

>Do you think a group of Psych undergrads who are willing to have instruments attached to their genitals while they watch porn are representative of the general population?

I have no idea where you got this idea that the test participants were “psych undergrads”, and your idea that perhaps some attractive female research assistant was putting on the instrument used to record arousal, and that they would record that and mistake it for the reaction to viewing homosexual pornography is simply ridiculous, and nothing more than a desperate attempt to try and find an alternate explanation.

The study clearly states that the participants “consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29)”. - no mention of them being under grads or anything else.

>It's not something you could just ask random people on the street to do.

I don't know how the participants in the test were requited and neither do you, so don't make statements like that without proof.

>And attacking the source of an idea, rather than refuting the idea itself is the ad hominem fallacy.

Your source is about as useful as the Bible when trying to determine the age of the Earth. If I had used a source that originated from the Church of Scientology you would call me out on it, and rightfully so. Do not expect to be treated in any other fashion from me. It shows what kind of lengths you will stoop to in order to avoid accepting results of studies that doesn't line up with your ideas.

You knew full well what kind of source you based your idea on, and you still went ahead and posted it for all to see. Either you are a moron or a troll.

When your source holds “that mental illnesses are not medical diseases and that the use of psychiatric medication is a destructive and fraudulent practice” and “links psychiatry or psychiatrists to school shootings, mass murders, eugenics, and terrorism” you'd have to be a fucking idiot to take it seriously, or to use it to prove your point.

>Perhaps the people with your study have an agenda as well. (nearly everyone in the social sciences does)

Then fucking prove it!

Unless you can do that, this is nothing more than more baseless speculations on your part.

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 18:55:39 4d12d5 No.11659

>>11658

A sample size of 35 people? That's not statistically significant sample size.

And I got a psych degree.. All the psych undergrads were required to show up and be the subjects for experiments.)

If they didn't get their subjects that way.. How did they get them.

Did they put an ad in paper for men willing to watch porno movies with instruments on their dicks? (for a payment of twenty dollars?)

What kind of person answers an ad like that?

Is that typical behavior?

This sort of subject selection is why so many psych experiments are shit. Take the famous Stanford Prison experiment. Does a normal healthy well-adjusted person have eight weeks to spare to spend role playing in a basement for a small sum of cash?

You're getting the same sort of people who sell blood plasma for beer money.

You're acceptance of this study without asking questions is based on just as much blind faith as accepting a biblical age of the earth.

And since the last source triggered you..

Here's the New York Times saying the same fucking thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/science/psychologists-welcome-analysis-casting-doubt-on-their-work.html?_r=0

Would you like to argue that the ghost of L. Ron Hubbard owns the New York Times?

Anonymous 10/09/15 (Fri) 20:36:05 4d12d5 No.11660

File: 1444422965912.jpg (44.04 KB, 595x631, 595:631, blown the fuck out.jpg)

>>11658

>>11659

Anonymous 10/14/15 (Wed) 02:06:12 6d25a7 No.11683

>>11645

When did you first notice your attraction for your mother?

Anonymous 10/14/15 (Wed) 12:30:46 4d12d5 No.11689

>>11683

The loaded question is a fine example of why of most psychology and sociology is crap.

Did you know poll result will vary by how the questions are phrased?

Poll 1 says.. "Do you support woman's right to choose when to have a child?"

Poll 2 says "Do you want to protect unborn children."?"

and then those polls disagree on what public opinion is.

And if that poll is a voluntary poll on the internet.. its even worse. Even if /b/ doesn't mess with it.. it results are invalid because only people who felt like looking up a poll and sounding off took it.

Ask questions about how these polls, and experiments were done before you start believing them.

Anonymous 10/14/15 (Wed) 14:41:43 18bab3 No.11690

File: 1444833703655.jpg (74.77 KB, 645x483, 215:161, image.jpg)

>>11689

You slipped and said child, but it's obvious you were really thinking about having a mother and giving her babies. My diagnosis is you developed a MILF fetish from bathing with your mother. Don't look so surprised, my last fifteen patients were the same. Oh there's no time to argue, I have another appointment. Auf wiedersehen, you can pay my secretary ten marks on your way out.

Anonymous 10/14/15 (Wed) 18:29:03 1c9171 No.11691

File: 1444847343590.jpg (90.45 KB, 672x372, 56:31, image.jpg)

>>11689

Here we see a clear representation of your repressed sexuality

You mentioned /b/, out of the blue. A clear sign of an obsession with large penises of black men, as this appears often there.

Anonymous 10/14/15 (Wed) 22:08:15 4d12d5 No.11698

File: 1444860495973.png (10.72 KB, 800x541, 800:541, inkblot test.png)

>>11691

Of course. I'm maladjusted and unhappy.. I'm an atheist. I refuse to open my heart to the truth and joy of Jesus.

“I sat on the bed. I looked at the Rorschach blot. I tried to make it look like a spreading tree, shadows pooled beneath it, but it didn't. It looked more like a dead cat I once found, the fat, glistening grubs writhing blindly, squirming over each other, frantically tunneling away from the light. But even that isn't the real horror. The horror is this: in the end, it is simply a picture of empty meaningless blackness.”

― Alan Moore, Watchmen

the atheist mind view must inevitably lead to despair.

Anonymous 10/16/15 (Fri) 03:09:01 8404c3 No.11744

>>11643

Smells like bullshit to me. I'm bisexual, and I used to be very religious. I never hated gays, I just thought of them as being sinners who were doomed to hell. I felt bad for them and wished I could change them, but I never came close to hating them.

Anonymous 10/16/15 (Fri) 03:24:11 9abfd1 No.11747

>>11631

why are you so hateful christians?

did Jesus molested you when you were a child or something?

Anonymous 10/16/15 (Fri) 05:16:08 4d12d5 No.11752

>>11744

You're bi.. but you want to change guys?

Into what?

Anonymous 10/16/15 (Fri) 06:43:59 b6fde7 No.11755

>>11631

Came back to /atheism/ after leaving this shit site for a while that's infested with memeshit arguments, this shithole's barely changed.

You probably make this argument to defend your "religion of love and peace" yet you people use hate to try to validate your message like the muslim extremists do and actually invalidate your whole religion. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, are we?

What consenting adults do in private in their bedrooms should be no one's business, at least anyone that loves freedom. And with any healthy society, it needs fault tolerance. Deviation from the norm should be allowed and tolerated as long as it's healthy to a society and many people of many sexual persuasions benefit society, homosexuals included. If you're offended by how people look and dress, you're probably more a sensitive faggot than the ones you oppose. I don't give a fuck if their looks and private actions offend you or not, I enlisted in the military to defend every person's freedom and protection.

The family in that picture can just as well be what's fucked up about America today. Smiling but behind those smiles there's anger and frustration at trying to live a life that they think they should live because someone said some god said you have to be this way and do this. In their need for peace and love, they become angry because they're afraid to show humanity, the anger, the darkness, and other human emotions as a cathartic release but they repress it and wind up bitter, angry people striving for what they can't achieve.

Maybe that's your problem, OP. You're an angry and bitter christfag that tries to put people down to make up for your own failings with your own "god of peace". You can have your gods, I'll take rationality any day.

Anonymous 10/19/15 (Mon) 05:46:04 979150 No.11796

>>11631

Typical theistfag. Coming here with meme pics about how their side is better because people are smiling in a pic. Just because you smile doesn't mean you're happy in life. Being who you are means more than putting on some fake smile, having a family, having debt, having a house you're indebted to, kids to feed and so on. Freedom means more to me than conforming to some bullshit status quo.

Also, sometimes doing what you think needs to be done is more important than being happy; it's called sacrifice, for society and self. I might be happier having kids, I don't know but the world doesn't need any more at this moment. I might be happier believing in Santa also but it doesn't mean it's true. If I was emotionally and intellectually stunted, I might believe in Santa for its own sake but sometimes the world is harsh and it's better to see it as harshly as it really is if you want to survive in it.

I should stop writing so much to reply to such an elementary-level post, it doesn't deserve it. That is unless OP wants to take heed and actually learn instead of ad hominem.