I SHOULD GET A LIFE

pablobanila:

paintstainedbrain:

pablobanila:

ch0colatesandhearts:

“She’s an angel…And I want her to drown in my cum.” LOL 

I’m not a fan of this guy; I think he’s too old for atheist jokes. But this one is just so disturbingly accurate LOL

I wonder if the same is true for girls? I wish somebody wrote something as passionately erotic as Lolita in the point of view of a female ravaging my nubile boy body.

Are you serious too old for atheist jokes? You have got to be kidding? There is no age limit on being atheist or any institution for that matter. 

When I was an atheist I thought I was entitled to bash the Bible and insult the intelligence of believers because I seriously intended to free them from what I saw was collective delusion. I was almost kicked out of high school for debating with our English teacher about her religious reading of the Book of Job when she should be discussing its poetic/prosodic merits, but parents in the PTA meeting to decide the matter defended me. Not to mention when I was twelve my bestfriend and I lined up for Ash Wednesday with the letters “sa an” written on our foreheads, to which the priest would complete the word “satan” with the holy cross—the plan didn’t pull through ‘cause we were laughing so hard. All this in the most Christian country in the world (Philippines; I’m in America now), where religious discrimination can ruin your future. I’ve only met very few other atheists back then, but I consider them my blood brothers—one of them founded Atheista, a website to raise awareness (especially in Christian countries like the Philippines) that atheists exist and that they aren’t evil as the country demonized us.

My hostile atheism mellowed down to snide criticism of hypocrisy. I passionately adhere to monogamy, and seeing a local Christian organization become a harem of predators still stir hatred in me. But it wasn’t until a friend I idolize—a fellow atheist I consider smarter (won ICPC and topped Google Code Jam at the age of 16) than the rest of us—replied to the anti-Christian email I sent to the entire school and explicitly called me an asshole that I realized that I wasn’t being the enlightened one among fools nor was I liberating them from a great evil—I was just being that: an asshole.

This friend introduced me to phenomenology, or philosophy through one’s own subjective conscious experience. He emphasized that my criticism of religion was trivial: my main argument was a syntactical-semantic one that simply disproves the existence of God and the authority of the Bible. Imagine if I were to tell you that your love for your girlfriend isn’t true; that your girlfriend isn’t beautiful—you wish you could prove it to me, but you realize that these things are almost impossible to communicate. The same holds true for what value Christians hold for non-existent things, on how they associate the concept of Heaven to the pleasure of doing something “good”, and Hell to the searing guilt of doing something “bad”. In a recent paper in Network Science (Graph Theory), where people were asked to map their social network on paper, some Christians considered Jesus Christ as a close friend. This is strong empirical evidence of the “reality” of God for believers that flies in the face of a trifling logical argument. In other words, hostile atheists insult a Christian for believing the existence of something she truly sees; worst, they insult somebody she truly loves.

The “correct” philosophical approach to this is provided by John Searle’s analytical philosophy/neurophilosophy, which categorizes statements as ontologically objective, ontologically subjective, epistemically objective, or epistemically subjective. For Edmund Husserl, founder of phenomenology, “what is primary in itself is subjectivity, understood as that which naively pregives the being of the world and then rationalizes it or objectifies it … the objective world, the world that exists for me, that always has and always will exist for me, the only world that ever can exist for me — this world, with all its objects, I said, derives its whole sense and its existential status, which it has for me, from me myself…” Searle, in his feud with phenomenologist Hubert Dreyfus, states: “How do we give an account of ourselves as conscious, intentionalistic, rational, speech-act performing, ethical, free-will possessing, political and social animals in a world that consists entirely of mindless, meaningless brute physical particles. Most of the important questions of philosophy are variations on this single question. … Once we accept the basic facts, and once we see that the mind, with all of its phenomenology, is derivative of, dependent on, the basic facts, then it seems to me, phenomenology plays an essential role in the analysis of the sorts of problems that I have been addressing. First of all, we begin with the phenomenology of our ordinary experience when we talk about dealing with money, property, government and marriage, not to mention belief, hope, fear, desire and hunger. But the point is that the phenomenological investigation is only the beginning. You then have to go on and investigate logical structures, most of which are not often accessible to phenomenology.”

Now I don’t have to enumerate the disadvantages of institutionalized religion for you already know that, but considering its persistence and its relentless social inertia, it doesn’t hurt to look at the bright side of something you can’t change by simply burning a church or two. While human beings are born with an innate sense of morality, if you give two candies to a child she might not share it to another. There are many ways to impart moral education, and the most effective is the use of narratives. In societies with little to no religious influence, morality is promulgated through stories narrated in the media. For a third world country where the majority can barely afford food, the only alternative to books, television, and radio is a public sermon where one book can be read aloud and benefit many.

That’s it for now.

WORD.