/atheism/ - Atheism

Alright I'll try to answer the edge master's questions.

>>2331
Why do humans need morality? For survival. Like beauty, evil is only in the eye of the beholder. Beauty and morality are subjective, and they are also instinctual. The instinctual concept of beauty is supposed to help you find a suitable mate. Humans are presocial, having a strong community is usually very important to our survival.

>Why do atheists chain themselves to morality
Because the benefit gained from being moral and being around moral people often out way benefit of acting immoral.

>Why not just be immoral and not get caught?
Thinks every criminal ever. There's a difference between PLANNING to not get caught and not getting caught. Even the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.

>Being moral is just like being in a religion
No. Just no.

Atheists just realize morality is subjective. That doesn't mean we should forgo it. I for one think the safety and technology are worth it.

>>2347
Sorry for the delay in responding, been studying control theory all night. And I apologize if my replies are not that prompt throughout this week, I probably should've posted this during reading week.

Also I'm going to sound edgy as fuck throughout this, so here's a trigger warning.

>Why do humans need morality? For survival.
Often morality contradicts survival. For instance say you did something wrong and can be punished by death, no one is on to you yet but the conventionally moral thing to do is come clean and put your life at risk in so doing. Another is doing conventionally immoral things like stealing, but if you succeed you are wealthier and the more wealth you own the better your survivability as you can pay for better food, healthcare, etc. Then, and this is going to sound edgy but fuck it, lets say you could kill every believer on the planet and effectively resulting in a society that is completely dedicated to the pursuit of science and technology. No more impediments to science from religious cranks having any part in the voting process. Shiny red button scenario. Now conventional morality says this is a big no no but the results would be the greatest thing that could happen for reason. We would never have to deal with these idiots in the volume they are now ever again, sure we'd have one or two cranks born every so often but society wouldn't be so skewed to protecting faith and other forms of irrationality. Science would develop at an excelled pace leading to better healthcare improving survival and so on. All thanks to us putting aside this morality that is valued so highly.

Another thing is survival is the goal why not just have survival be the goal in itself? Why drag morality into this?

>Because the benefit gained from being moral and being around moral people often out way benefit of acting immoral.
You just need to look at Wall St to know this is not true. You can gain so much more befriending immoral people, you just need to watch your back. Morality, especially conventional, is often costly as it demands personal sacrifice for the good of others.

>Thinks every criminal ever. There's a difference between PLANNING to not get caught and not getting caught. Even the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.
Indeed. But like with high risk stocks the potential payout is so much greater. That's why people are drawn to crime, it's lucrative.

>No. Just no.
It's not exactly the same. But there are parallels between religion and morality.

Religion is a set of beliefs, rituals and rules or guidelines about the universe, including what is right and wrong. I'd be hard pressed to find one religion that does not have a moral code. Also atheism isn't a religion as it's not a belief. Now morality is a set of rules or guidelines on what one believes is right and wrong. Both morality and religion have their basis in belief and both are about how to properly conduct yourself according to said guidelines. In a way morality is the purest form of religion without the gods and whatever to muck it up, it's just the guideline on what is believed to be right and wrong and how to act in a moral fashion.

>>2382
cont


>and technology are worth it.
I'm radical in my pursuit for technological progress; only valuing myself, close friends and family above technology. Now society is becoming more and more automated and that raises many moral questions. Since automation is cheaper to run and results in greater yields than human labor the question comes down to what next? Lets say the average machine outputs like 50 humans but humans need energy to survive. Who gets the energy (or food, etc). If rapid progress is what we want (like I want) the logical choice is to throw them under the bus but that's not very conventionally moral. Then there is shit like tax money going to help drug addicts which won't contribute anything to the development of technology, if they even end up working at Taco Bell is debatable, but that money could be going straight to R&D instead of doing the conventionally moral thing. The point is being moral does not equate to increasing the rate at which technology is developed. In some cases it does like helping a gifted poor kid have breakfast everyday so they can go on to become a mathematician or something but it's a case by case basis sorta thing. Not every poor kid has the ability to contribute to the development of technology and their breakfast money could be put to better use going to R&D.

Also safety, lets consider genuinely high risk infectious disease outbreaks. Conventional morality would state that we should risk our lives to save the infected but we in turn put ourselves at risk in so doing. There's risk in getting them into quarantine and risk with maintain quarantine protocol, fuck even Ebola highlighted that risk in a developed country though it was small in comparison to what I'm discussing now. Could you imagine an airborne virus (not just aerosolizeable) with the same symptoms and high death rates? Conventional morality be damned, fire bomb the affected areas. I'm not going to risk my life for morals. It's not worth it.

>>2382
>Often morality contradicts survival.
Wow, your thinking is just ass backwards. It's easier to survive in a society where everyone is moral, than it is in a society where everyone is immoral. Sure, stealing adds more to your wealth and chances of survival, but being stolen from takes away from your survival chances.

Morality is about doing things to help the society and not doing things that hurt the society, so the society can survive. Society is a tool used by presocial animals to help them survive. As in, you act moral to improve society because society helps you survive.

>You just need to look at Wall St to know this is not true.
Cherry picking. Just because immorality pays for some, doesn't mean it's always the best course of action. Also, notice how I used the word 'often', we're not dealing in absolutes.

>like with high risk stocks the potential payout is so much greater. That's why people are drawn to crime, it's lucrative.
True, but stupid people are drawn more to gambling because they don't have a firm grasp of the concept of odds. Stupid people are also drawn more to a life of crime.

>there are parallels between religion and morality.
Not really. Religion uses people sense of morality to help control them. Religion is just a political tool. Some political groups, like religions, will try to use peoples sense of morality to control them. Although, a healthy dose of skepticism can make that difficult. That's why secular humanism isn't like a religion, it isn't dogmatic morality.

Morality in it's purist form is an instinctual sense of right and wrong. It's not a defined objective thing, as presented like religion.

>>2383
>Technology
Seams like that point went WAY over your head. So, let me explain it better.

Technology is the result of science. Science isn't the result of one persons work, but a commonalty effort (standing on the shoulders of giants). It requires a society to work. Morality helps build a stable society. In fact you could say being a scientist IS moral, sacrificing your own time on mundane research in hopes that one day someone will use it to better society and make life easier for everyone.

Also, human's high intelligence is a result of our presocialness, which is where our moral instinct comes from. Because how long it takes a human to grow outside of a womb, we would have went extinct without a sense of morality.

You seam to be nitpicking this or that about morality instead of looking at the whole picture for what it is. Also, what's up with these questions? You sound like a 13 year old just stumbled upon philosophy, or someone who is somewhat autistic and I don't mean that in the typical chan insult way who just can't wrap their head around how a society works. Maybe you're just a troll from /christian/ who can't figure out why atheists aren't crazy immoral psychopaths? Seriously, what's with all the edges?

>>2405
>Wow, your thinking is just ass backwards. It's easier to survive in a society where everyone is moral, than it is in a society where everyone is immoral.
Not necessarily as has been pointed out with the infectious disease outbreak scenario such a society could eliminate itself for the sake of its morals. You're just so stuck in this conventional box you can't think outside of it.

>Morality is about doing things to help the society and not doing things that hurt the society, so the society can survive. Society is a tool used by presocial animals to help them survive. As in, you act moral to improve society because society helps you survive.
Yeah but when society's survival conflicts with your own and this does happen what then? Here you admit that you should only be moral when you get something out of it and I agree with that. But why be moral why not just have logical rules in place for the survival of society? Why make up this concept when all you can say is the reason why murder is illegal is because it would result in chaos otherwise? Not to sound like a 13 year old but morality is invoked much like when parents can't explain to their kids why a rule is in place so they say because my house my rules. Society's morality society's rules.

>Cherry picking.
Just using an example for a proof by contradiction. Well not really a proof in the strict sense but for the purpose of this it's good enough. I don't need to test superposition when I have proven the system isn't homogenous to know it's not linear. Morality isn't much of a guideline when it fails it supposed purpose in an example and I gave many throughout that post.

>Just because immorality pays for some, doesn't mean it's always the best course of action.
Agreed but likewise just because morality pays for some, doesn't mean it's always the best course of action.

>True, but stupid people are drawn more to gambling because they don't have a firm grasp of the concept of odds.
Crime isn't the same as gambling, a lot of intelligent criminals make calculated risks that work out very nicely for them. Thanks for playing, try again. Also a lot of stupid people are drawn to crime since stupid people tend to be poor and have no other option except a shitty mcjob so they have nothing to lose.

>Religion is just a political tool.
So is morality and you admitted this when you said morality is required for society's stability. Just like religious experience is traced back to neural circuits so is morality the same, not the same circuits. It's there to be exploited.

>Although, a healthy dose of skepticism can make that difficult. That's why secular humanism isn't like a religion, it isn't dogmatic morality.
LOL, that's why secular humanists bend over backwards for Islam right? I'm sorry but you picked the wrong ideology if you like skepticism, their skepticism ends with Christards. Secular humanism while it does reject god is based in belief, that all humans are practically sacred. This isn't explicitly said but when you get right to it that's what humanists believe in.

>Morality in it's purist form is an instinctual sense of right and wrong. It's not a defined objective thing, as presented like religion.
It doesn't matter if you admit to morality is subjective, it is still used in arguments just like a skywizard. As has been stated before: My skywizard says X is wrong. My morality tells me X is wrong. In fact religious people admit their belief is subjective when they say I believe in x. They just haven't thought it through enough like with everything else. They contradict themselves when they say their belief is objective. My subjective opinion tells me X is objective is what they say.

>>2413
cont


>Seams like that point went WAY over your head.
Much projection on your part. You still can't grasp thinking outside convention. I pity you.

>Technology is the result of science. Science isn't the result of one persons work, but a commonalty effort (standing on the shoulders of giants).
Duh, the peer review process and accumulation. Though if it wasn't for those individual giants the community would develop at a snail's pace. It's really the breakthroughs of a few that have developed science, the rest are disposable.

> It requires a society to work.
Actually it just requires following the method and some peers.

>Morality helps build a stable society.
Really it is need for cooperation, you don't need morals as much as you need to have a need to cooperate. Also stability is not necessarily a good thing, look at China for example. Their society traded advancement for stability and is why Europe and not China went on to industrialize first.

>In fact you could say being a scientist IS moral, sacrificing your own time on mundane research in hopes that one day someone will use it to better society and make life easier for everyone.
That depends on the goals of the particular scientist, plenty don't care about society but care about discovery or developing something for themselves. Their intention may not be for society at all so the idea that they are sacrificing themselves for you and society is misplaced.

>human's high intelligence is a result of our presocialness
Nope, it is the result of a complex brain. In fact the Neanderthals developed the first industrial process and were practically autistic. But that's autism, not morality. There are many argument regarding their intelligence in comparison but it's hard to say since we don't know their brain architecture and we can't based that on skulls, their equivalent of the fore brain could've receded further back. They may have had a smaller concentration of motor neurons, etc, etc. But I digress, what about when we start developing strong AI? I doubt it will need morality to think on a level higher than us, it would be an extra subprocess we add so it submits to us like moral sheep.

Also strong AI and automation will make society obsolete. If such a system is designed properly it will be able to do all the functions of society for an individual this replacing the need that individual has for society. Think about this: fully automated, seal-repairing space ship that only needs solar power to run. Food, water, gases are all cycled maybe with a self sustaining algae-bacteria cocultre life-support system. Automated medical bay with life extension technology. AI run entertainment system that makes its own games. You wouldn't need anyone after this point.

> Because how long it takes a human to grow outside of a womb, we would have went extinct without a sense of morality.
Nope this has everything to do with kin selection, not morality.

>You seam to be nitpicking this or that about morality instead of looking at the whole picture for what it is.
See this is why everything I said has gone over your head. I'm going a "proof" (yeah it's not a legit proof more thought experiment) by contradiction. I have demonstrated that in many case morality does not only impede but is out right detrimental to the goals you specified.

>Also, what's up with these questions?
Oh you don't like inquiry is that it? Everyone who asks questions is an autistic 13 year old or christard pretending to be atheist?

> and I don't mean that in the typical chan insult way who just can't wrap their head around how a society works. Maybe you're just a troll from /christian/ who can't figure out why atheists aren't crazy immoral psychopaths? Seriously, what's with all the edges?
Dude, I'm just stepping outside conventional thinking and trying to explore new ways of thinking abut things if this offends you I'm sorry. You can go on drumming like you're some skeptic but never really scrutinizing those ideas you hold close to you. Just like every other humanists you don't want to honestly investigate the worth of others, no one one must dare question the sacredness of humanity.

And I know why you guys are the way you are, you're slaves to your empathy. You're not able to reject primitive instinct but instead post-rationalize it.

inb4 uncontrollable empathy is great
Sure having a backdoor exploit so any eloquent sociopath can manipulate you is such a benefit. Yeah emotional gullibility is great.

Anyway I'll get back to you some time later this week or maybe next week, I have many midterms and shit to focus on now.

Apostate here. What is wrong with trying to keep to the Golden rule? Were you not loved enough? Has not a single person loved you your entire life? The benefit of doing good onto others even if there is less gain for yourself is knowledge you were responsible, and with any luck if you're down on your luck someone just like you out there will repay the debt you gave to society. It also makes for a society where neighbors do not throw their rubbish on your lawn.

Some of your examples are absurd like. For instance your first post says cutting people is not wrong, and then you justify it with mumbo-jumbo. Wherever you go taking the life of an innocent is considered wrong, unless you can find an excuse like it was an accident, or I was trying to save someone else. There are aspects that are nearly universal.

>>2331
Well, morality matters, because it is the conduct that is supposed to let both the individual and its species survive in the best way possible.
Morality is an evolutionary byproduct.

I've been an atheist again for about a month now, but what you propose is morally and thus evolutionary bankrupt, dear speciecider.

>>2413
>Not necessarily as has been pointed out with the infectious disease outbreak scenario such a society could eliminate itself for the sake of its morals.
Well, morality is a trait gained from our evolution. Like anything evolved, what helps us survive can be turned against us by changes in our environment. Then we must adapt or perish. In our current environment however, morality helps us survive. Thus, the scenario you've cooked up is pointless.
>You're just so stuck in this conventional box you can't think outside of it.
Careful with those edges.

>Yeah but when society's survival conflicts with your own and this does happen what then?
Then you're fucked.
>why be moral why not just have logical rules in place for the survival of society?
Having logical rules in place for the survival of society would be moral.
>Society's morality society's rules.
Living outside of society would suck though.

>Well not really a proof in the strict sense but for the purpose of this it's good enough.
No, it's not.
>Morality isn't much of a guideline when it fails it supposed purpose in an example and I gave many throughout that post.
That doesn't prove anything. Other than you can't grasp a simple concept.

>morality pays for some, doesn't mean it's always the best course of action.
Yeah, but it usually is. Another anon pointed out how it's like game theory.

>Crime isn't the same as gambling
It's a lot like gambling.
>intelligent criminals make calculated risks that work out very nicely for them.
True, smarter people make better criminals, but still a big risk no matter what.
>poor and have no other option except a shitty mcjob so they have nothing to lose.
True.
>stupid people tend to be poor
Nah. Sure, they're less likely to be well educated, but still. Money doesn't make your brain work better.

>So is morality
Morality precedes politics. Religion, by nature, is part of politics. Most presocial animals have a instinctual sense of morality. It's very primal. Before start trying to argue semantics, by 'politics' I mean, of course, state politics.
>religious experience is traced back to neural circuits so is morality the same
So can rational thought. Is this supposed to be a point?
>It's there to be exploited.
Anything can be exploited. Morality doesn't exist solely to be exploited.

>that's why secular humanists bend over backwards for Islam right? I'm sorry but you picked the wrong ideology if you like skepticism
Nice straw man argument faggot.
Richard Dawkins is a secular humanist and a skeptic, and he's very critical or Islam. Just like most secular humanists and skeptics. It seams like you've confused secular humanists with SJWs.

>My skywizard says X is wrong. My morality tells me X is wrong.
One's dogmatic and one's not. How are you not getting that?

>>2414
>You still can't grasp thinking outside convention. I pity you.
Implying implications

>Though if it wasn't for those individual giants the community would develop at a snail's pace.
Maybe, but without the community the individual giants wouldn't have done anything.
>It's really the breakthroughs of a few that have developed science, the rest are disposable.
No, everyone needs play their part, everyone from the stars to the extras.

>Actually it just requires following the method and some peers.
Which require a society.

>you don't need morals as much as you need to have a need to cooperate.
Morals help people cooperate.
> Their society traded advancement for stability
Sure, you can have stability without advancement, but you can't have advancement without stability.

>plenty don't care about society but care about discovery or developing something for themselves.
Other people could find it moral. I'm not saying the scientists themselves would necessarily find it moral, even though some would.

>Nope, it is the result of a complex brain.
I marvel at how the point gallantly flies over your tiny pseudo intellectual mind. Because of our complex brains we're born less devolved than most animals. We need a presocial society to be raised, so we can survive. The presocialness came first, and allowed for our large complex brains to evolve. Not sure why you brought up Neanderthals they were presocial too.

>Nope this has everything to do with kin selection, not morality.
Kin selection is part of morality.

>I'm going a "proof" (yeah it's not a legit proof more thought experiment) by contradiction. I have demonstrated that in many case morality does not only impede but is out right detrimental to the goals you specified.
Your shit tier 'thought experiments' don't prove or demonstrate anything. They're just biased what if scenarios.

>Everyone who asks questions is an autistic 13 year old or christard pretending to be atheist?
I said THESE question. As in, the questions, that YOU are asking specifically. Reading is hard huh?

>I'm just stepping outside conventional thinking and trying to explore new ways of thinking
Be careful, you don't want to break your arm patting yourself on the back.
>if this offends you I'm sorry.
Nah, that doesn't offend me.
>You can go on drumming like you're some skeptic but never really scrutinizing those ideas you hold close to you.
What you're doing, reinforcing your own preconceptions and beliefs with 'what if' scenarios of your own invention, is not skepticism. What I'm doing, answering the question of why humans have a concept of morality what it's purpose is by examining human evolution, is skepticism.
>no one one must dare question the sacredness of humanity.
said no secular humanist ever.

>And I know why you guys are the way you are, you're slaves to your empathy. You're not able to reject primitive instinct but instead post-rationalize it.
Wow, so edgy.

Seriously, it does feel like I'm talking to a kid, an autist and/or a troll. For real though, how old are you? Because if you're not in middle/high school, then you probably have some kind of neurological disorder.

>>2421
>i was loved and wouldn't love someone who didn't deserve it. (Not even a little!). I must get something out of every relationship.
Dat cucksplaining, there's no point in being in relationships where you get nothing out of them. That's the worst thing you couldn't do to yourself is put yourself in the position where you just give and they just take. Relationships should be from mutual benefit.

>You would make an awful, unsupportive parent, and I wouldn't have anything to do with you if I met you irl.
Except that my child deserves my love as it is passing on my genes.

>Don't drag exceptions
Morality can't handle exceptions, which was my point.

>Killing innocents, and especially killing equals, has been frowned upon.
Didn't stop them from doing it. Just because they don't value those people as people doesn't change the fact that they were innocent people. They just found a loophole, funny if morality is so great why does everyone look for a loophole?

>>2434
>both the individual and its species survive in the best way possible.
Sometimes these contradict. My survival could depend on throwing the rest of you under a bus. I went about this at length throughout this thread, you can see my points above.

>Morality is an evolutionary byproduct.
So is Huntington's.

>>2439
>Well, morality is a trait gained from our evolution.
So is Tay Sachs.

>Then we must adapt or perish. In our current environment however, morality helps us survive. Thus, the scenario you've cooked up is pointless.
No, because that scenario is about a possible change in the ever changing environment. I'm talking about being adaptable, you're talking about restricting yourself for some bullshit like morality so you aren't. You see you're not as adaptable as I because your head is stuck in the moral box and can't fathom anything beyond it - it's just edgy.

>Having logical rules in place for the survival of society would be moral.
No it would be logical. Like killing off the religious, but that's not moral.

>That doesn't prove anything.
Not in the strict sense, but I don't have time for mathematical proofs right now. But for a guideline to be worth anything it shouldn't fail under so many scenarios.

Also you're so far from the actual definition of proof too so if I'm letting you go by with these poor standards you can let me have the same coutesy. FFS this is 8chan, not a scientific journal.

>Other than you can't grasp a simple concept.
Such projective Dunning Kruger.

> like game theory.
Lets look at the prisoner's dilemma. It illustrates my point so well. Given one moral prisoner and one immoral prisoner, the immoral one will be set free while the other will stay in prison.

>Money doesn't make your brain work better.
Better food, better upbringing, all these things influence better brain development. And even then the dumber you the more difficulty you have in making money.

>Morality precedes politics.
No, political groups often enough come to power on one set of morals only to impose another all the time.

>So can rational thought. Is this supposed to be a point?
Except that rational thought is not exploitable otherwise it's not rational or the information is incomplete or faulty.

>Richard Dawkins is a secular humanist and a skeptic, and he's very critical or Islam. Just like most secular humanists and skeptics.
He, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Maher are among the minority who criticize Islam, most humanists are too afraid of being called racist. Secular humanists put humanity over reason in most cases. It is a balancing act between reason and a weird sort of non-theistic human sacredness.

You guys find it immoral to outlaw religion or kill the religious, two things that would be the greatest thing for reason ever, even commies were better than humanists though they had Lysenko. Now why is that? Because all human life is sacred according to you guys. And it's not like two faced politicians either who preach one thing to do another you guys actually believe the religious deserve to be amongst us.

>>2451
cont


>One's dogmatic and one's not. How are you not getting that?
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

There's a pretty good example above where someone tries to justify killing innocents as incontrovertibly wrong by authorities.

It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

Perfect, negate the value of humans and there goes humanism.

Humanism is dogma like every ism.

>Maybe, but without the community the individual giants wouldn't have done anything.
Often the community suppressed those giants: Galileo et al. It could be argued they would've done more without this community.

>No, everyone needs play their part, everyone from the stars to the extras.
You can always replace extras, they are expendable hence why they're extras.

>Which require a society.
Actually those peers make a society.

>Morals help people cooperate.
No they can get in the way. Look at today's oversensitive moral environment where shit like Donglegate happens. If people didn't care about the feelings of others but just focused on the topic at hand we wouldn't have wasted time that could've went into developing Python.

>Sure, you can have stability without advancement, but you can't have advancement without stability.
War proves this wrong. War is probably the least stable time and yet there are so many advancements.

>I marvel at how the point gallantly flies over your tiny pseudo intellectual mind.
If I'm pseudo-intellectual you're anti-intellectual.

>The presocialness came first, and allowed for our large complex brains to evolve.
That's what happened, but that's history. Our intelligence is a result of our complexity which is a result of various things that happened prehistorically.

But notice how you left out the part about AI, it's too scary for you isn't it? The thought that something could be pure logic devoid of vestigial traits like empathy.

>Kin selection is part of morality.
No it is not, it is not based on belief of right and wrong. Species that aren't even conscious work according to Hamilton's rule. Morality requires consciousness.

>Your shit tier 'thought experiments' don't prove or demonstrate anything. They're just biased what if scenarios.
So much salt, of course they're biased. The whole point is to find scenarios where applying your morality will not work out very well.

>What you're doing, reinforcing your own preconceptions and beliefs with 'what if' scenarios of your own invention, is not skepticism
I have no beliefs, you're the one here who believes in morality, son. I'm just testing to see if morality hold water and it doesn't as it has failed all my what if scenarios.

See I'm an atheist when it comes to morality, I have no beliefs of right and wrong.

>What I'm doing, answering the question of why humans have a concept of morality what it's purpose is by examining human evolution, is skepticism.
No you're reinforcing your faith in morality by dodging questions that question you morality. That's far from skepticism, here you are bitching about questions. You've bitched about inquiry in the last few posts. Just because that inquiry does not come to the results you're looking for, support in your moral hogwash.

>said no secular humanist ever.
Not directly, humanists believe life is not just about us but I see no proof of this. Strictly as far as I know for sure I'm the only conscious one but that's getting off track. Even if you are conscious (you probably are) believing my life is also for you is a belief. Until there is a sequitur argument why my life is for others humanism is a belief just as much as Christinsanity and Islam and all that stupid irrational shit.

>Seriously, it does feel like I'm talking to a kid, an autist and/or a troll. For real though, how old are you? Because if you're not in middle/high school, then you probably have some kind of neurological disorder.
I feel so bad for you, slave to silly concepts like morality. Seriously if we're gonna talk about disorders empathy is up there. You feel bad just because someone else does, that's a disease. You at any time can have your state of mind depressed because someone else feels that way while I can just recognize they're upset and go about my business. I can mimic the empathetic response if needed while you can't control yourself.


Anyway I'll be gone to for the week, don't get too upset that your status quo is being challenged and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

>>2417
>>2421
^me

>>2468
>>2469
>can't argue
>resorts to calling arguments stupid
If they're so stupid you should be able to debunk them under 30mins. But all you can do is dodge scrutiny to hold up your faith in this notion of morality.

>devoid of basic logic and reason
So much projection.

>Also, you never said how old you were, and you never denied having neurological disorder. To me, this confirms you are indeed some combination of underage, autist/crazy, and troll.
Great logic there, sure showed me and the rest of this board you know how to reason. I just don't care to address all your butthurt.

Anyway back to studying.