#anyway my absolute favorite.............. the woman that convinced me to ultimately continue these books | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ssironstrange · 6 years ago

Text

buckle in, i have some Personal Shit to get off my chest and fling into the void. might as well before i’m Purged, right? lots of triggery stuff ahead.

so last week i got a job. it isn’t a spectacular job. the pay is shit and it’s extremely physically taxing. but it’s a job. i’ve been unemployed since july having put countless resumes out and done a handful of interviews with absolutely no luck. so we’re just happy i’m employed and going to have some income again.

on my very first day of orientation last week, my mom texts me asking me about christmas plans and i tell her i’m unsure what my schedule will look like while my brother is in town because i literally just started and don’t actually have any sort of schedule yet, obviously.

she proceeds to get pissed. starts calling me selfish for getting a job right before christmas. blames me for messing up plans because now she’s gonna have to work around my schedule. says i did this on purpose because i could have easily gotten a job like this at any time. i’m floored.

like, my mom is a grade A special class cunt, but she took it to new levels. i couldn’t even think of anything to say. i was so appalled and upset by the fact this woman couldn’t even say a simple “congrats” to her own daughter, knowing the troubling financial situation we’ve been in. eventually my s/o took my phone from me to text her himself because he was Done with her shit. i proceeded to have a mini-breakdown. i thought she had finally changed. like, i went without speaking to her at all for two years before because of bullshit like this she pulled on me in the past and told her if she wanted me in her life she needed to take a hard look at herself and change some shit. and she did. for a long while there she really did. she stopped drinking (she’s a raging alcoholic who will deny that until her dying breath) unless it was a special occasion and even then it was only like one glass. she started being nicer, friendlier, and a lot more grateful for the things we help her with. she stopped complaining and bitching about every possible thing. hell, she even started finding some social events to get out and go to. For a while she was actually kinda nice to be around for a change.

and then she did that and it made me realize nothing about her has actually changed. she can’t change. she has so many unchecked mental problems she refuses to see a doctor about. she’s in denial about 90% of them. she is sick, needs treatment, but refuses it at all. refuses to even acknowledge she’s sick. she’s extremely narcissistic. her selfishness knows no bounds. she honestly believes that giving $50 to someone in need while dropping $2k on herself(on shit she doesn’t need at ALL) is being generous. she has no concept of saving money. she has to spend it. she’s a hoarder and shopaholic. she’s paranoid of everyone and everything; everyone is out to get her, conspiring against her. any time her phone acts up she’s convinced someone is trying to hack her. a company accidentally overcharging her and she thinks someone within that company is personally trying to steal from her. she believes her doctors are trying to fuck with her when they’re literally just trying to obey the law. no matter what it is, its always about her. it doesn’t even fucking cross her mind even once what another person might be going through or dealing with or that accidents happen. she believes because a waitress working a double shift on thanksgiving didn’t bring her napkins in 5 seconds when she asked that she doesn’t deserve a tip. she feels personally attacked when i talk about her generation as a whole. she can’t ever be wrong. she believes because she’s older that she knows everything. she believes because she has had an encounter with something that it makes her an expert on it, or because she read 1 book or 1 unsourced article on the internet that she knows more. she believes, in her mind, that i am still 13 years old. honestly. she continuously pulls up weird shit from that time. thinks i still dress the same, still have the same preferences about everything no matter how many times i have told her “i haven’t like that since i was 12/13/whatever age.” hell she even talks to me like i’m a child half the time. She hasn’t worked a job since she was in her 30s and lies to live off the government, mooches from literally anyone she can, and gets oil royalties that she didn’t even do anything to invest in, she just inherited them. but then has the gall to bitch at me about jobs when i’ve been working since i was barely 15. she believes the world owes her. she believes that we kids owe her for being a mother and frequently tries to hold that over me as if that weren’t her fucking duty anyway when she decided to keep us. she is always angry and negative and prone to violence - especially while drunk. she has literally pointed a loaded, cocked gun at my chest, thrown glass dishes at me (which ended with glass shards in my hands and feet), dragged me by my hair, and has done ten times that in emotional abuse. she’s called the cops on my brother over an argument, and has thrown a computer monitor at me (one of those old CRT ones) because i said she was acting crazy. she would get so nasty with me my brother would have to step in and tell her to shut the fuck up. she didn’t even try to get me into counselling or therapy or even talk to me when she found out i was being sexually assaulted as a young child. all she did was remove me from the situation, which ultimately removed me from half of my family and didn’t explain why. she never told me is wasn’t my fault. she never talked to me about what sex actually was and how it’s supposed to be. she never told me about consent. she did nothing for me to cope with and process the years of physical and mental trauma i had endured, and i am still fucked up from it to this day because it defined my view of everything sexual. it created deep and strong neural pathways i’ll be lucky to ever be able to change. she went through my mail and read a letter to a long distance friend, finding out i was queer and genderfluid and outed me to the rest of the family, called me a disgrace and disgusting. she would go through chat logs and shame me about everything she could. she’s racist as fuck, still uses the N word, and has told me several times if i ever dated a black person she would disown me. she has always played favorites with my brother because he is the smart one, the one who graduated at 16 and got into university on full scholarship at 17, the one who has always been a social butterfly, extroverted with lots of friends, neurotypical by most standards, handsome and always had good taste in girls, successful in everything he does, and has a great career as an environmental engineer that pays well enough for him to take multiple overseas trips, pay off student loans(when he decided to switch majors and stay in college longer) and is just over all the perfect son (he and i have always gotten along fantastically. i love him immensely, but it’s no secret to either of us who she has always favored),and she’s an opioid addict - another thing she will deny until she’s dead. and thats just everything i can think of at the moment. theres more. theres always more.

so she texted me a couple days ago apologizing without actually apologizing. blaming her attitude on the fact her pain meds are being reduced (not once did she actually say sorry) and she’s been in a bad mood because of it. today she texted me, still without a real apology, just saying how she’s wondering how my job is going. but the truth is, i know she doesn’t give a fuck. she only wants to feel better about herself. she wants to believe she’s forgiven so she can have things her way again. she doesn’t actually give a shit about my feelings, about what she’s done to me, or about how this is the same cycle of bullshit we’ve been through countless times. she doesn’t care.

and yet, i still find myself feeling guilty to cut her out like the tumor she is. despite everything she has done to me. i can’t help it and i wish i could. she has manipulated me so much throughout my life that i have an almost pavlovian response to feel like its my fault, that i’m the failure she’s always said i am, that i’m the one letting her down. i know i’m not. i know that isn’t the truth but it’s still there and i hate it. but still, i’m trying my best to just fucking ignore her. she doesn’t get to have the satisfaction of thinking all is well and forgiven. i’ve been through this too many times and frankly i’m just so fucking tired of it.

#personal #trigger warning #about a lot of shit

17 notes · View notes

fadedtoblue · 7 years ago

Text

My thoughts on The Punisher

Surprise, surprise -- I have (extremely scattershot) thoughts about The Punisher!

The husband and I binged this over the past 3 days (2 episodes Thursday @ midnight, 5 episodes Friday night, and 6 episodes over Saturday) and given its unrelenting intensity I’m pretty sure there are a lot of details I’m not going to fully grasp until I watch this again, but overall impression -- super solid. I would still personally rank it under Daredevil (sorry, he’s always gonna be my number 1!!), but I think it jockeys for second position with Jessica Jones? This particular show did some things amazingly well that the others haven’t, I think largely due to the fact that it was a standalone series, separate from the Defenders, and didn’t need to mess around with rationalizing any superheroics or powers -- at its core, it’s an intense and violent 13-hour examination of Frank Castle, who incidentally exists in a world with superheroes. But anyway, let’s dive in -- it should go without saying that spoilers absolutely abound after the cut...

Let’s start with the good stuff:

Jon Bernthal as Frank. Listen, whether you loved or hated the show, it can’t be denied that Jon absolutely kills it as Frank. This show lives and dies on those fine as hell shoulders and he brings it in every stage of Frank we see on screen. I liked that they never shied away from all of the messy parts of him -- geez, when he’s holding a freaking knife to Zack’s neck...worst parental pep talk ever? Or when he’s genuinely encouraging Lewis to blow himself up. And the unflinching way he goes about his kills. But as you can imagine, it’s those moments when he loses his grip on his steely control, when he can’t rely on his rage to hold him together...those were my favorite ones. When he has those aching moments with Karen by the waterfront and in the elevator. When he realizes that Russo knew about the mission that would kill Maria and the kids. We know Frank does rage well but I’m glad we didn’t fully leave behind broken, grieving Frank either.

Well-drawn side characters, especially those that had a direct relationship with Frank. As far as main character relationships go, Frank and Micro pretty much made it for me? They balanced each other so well and were such assholes...yet caring assholes lol. I don’t even think I could keep track of how many times I just burst out laughing during their scenes. Frank explicitly trying to fuck with him by visiting Sarah, Frank tying Micro naked to the chair (of course he would), Micro pushing Frank around in the chair (hee), any exchanges that had to do with food (lol the sandwich bit), the drunk shit-talking...I loved it all. Part of me hopes that David can just live a happy, quiet life with his family and not get pulled into this shit anymore but I’m sure that’s not happening...which makes me feel torn haha.

Frank and Karen were a highlight as well. It was definitely very measured amounts of interaction, but I felt like they didn’t waste a second of it. And the way it culminated was quite emotional, but earned. Like that amazing scene in the elevator with Karen, absolutely beat up and exhausted and nearly broken and the only thing keeping them standing in that moment is that unspoken thing between the two of them -- they want so much to lean into each other and just stop but they know they can’t. She knows he can’t. And her implicit support and encouragement for him to continue on was a really strong character beat. There’s no way they don’t see each other again in DDS3 as far as I’m concerned.

After that, I did like what they did with his connections to Curtis and Billy, I definitely bought all of them as members of the same unit and connected by this unspoken code / brotherhood. I had issues with some of the background motivations which I’ll bring up later but...yeah, I was just like DAMN Frank actually has some really good friends! I’ll call out Billy briefly here, because shit, he was SO MESSED UP but I think they did a really good job evolving his position as Frank’s grieving brother in arms in the beginning of the series to someone who has gone crazy from losing everything he’s worked for and I’m already shivering a little to imagine the pain he’s going to lay at the feet of Frank Castle and characters like Dinah...ugh ugh ugh! But anyway, well done by Ben Barnes!

Considerate approach to examining grief, PTSD and veteran’s issues. Okay, I’m really not super knowledgeable about PTSD and veteran’s issues in general so I’m only speaking from my own limited opinion, but the way it was approached on this show felt...fresh? It was handled with respect -- mainly in showing how different people process and deal with that trauma differently...you could see that in Frank, Curtis, Billy, and Lewis -- but at the same time worked as an unflinching examination of how the system fails...so that part was really solid. At first I wasn’t entirely sure why we were spending so much time with Curtis and the support group and these slightly caricatured individuals but I think it paid off in the end. Lewis was a struggle for me at first but I ultimately think he was an extremely necessary story to tell because he does encapsulate all of the failures the show was trying to examine and I think Frank needed to confront someone like him over the course of this show.

And the examination of grief. I’ll touch upon what they did with Sarah in this section because I think that’s basically the purpose she was meant to serve with Frank. I’m sure some people weren’t super thrilled with how much it got drawn out, but I don’t know, it really kind of worked for me? Obviously Frank makes first contact simply to freak Micro the fuck out (and it works), but at a certain point, it’s essentially forced into continued contact with Sarah and the kids and despite his best efforts, I think he starts to confront his own issues and demons regarding Maria and the kids through this connection with a woman who actually has a unique and powerful understanding of exactly what he’s going through. And these meetings are almost like therapy for him? I can’t imagine he’s ever had a safe space to process all of the ways he feels like he’s let his family down. And I think he is able to work through some of this by talking to Sarah, by connecting with the kids. This is really something Frank the character needed. As far as the romantic overtones? Undertones? I found it quite realistic actually. I liked that the show towed a grey area with it for a while, and if you think a single mother of two kids who is still intensely grieving the loss of her husband and her children’s father wouldn’t respond romantically to this man who keeps showing up and essentially fixing her life? I was super opposed to the idea of Frank kissing Sarah but I think the way they did it worked. They were very clear that it was a response borne out of her own struggles, and Frank makes it very clear to her and to Micro that this doesn’t mean anything to him. If you see how Sarah reacts to Micro in the last couple of episodes (damn it was a gutpunch) then you wouldn’t worry about what she thinks about Frank Castle!

Episodic pacing + interesting storytelling devices. People usually gripe and grouse that Netflix shows have pacing issues but I felt like Punisher (even with my minor issues with plot and stuff) really kept me engaged through the entire run. None of the episodes felt like filler or stopped the story in its tracks (which has definitely happened on all of the other Marvel Netflix series). They also took some fun risks with storytelling structure, particularly in 1x05 (with the ambush on Gunnar’s property being mainly told via body cam) and 1x10 (with the time jumps / intercutting between various POV, both reliable and not) -- it was things like that which kept the show chugging along at an exciting pace.

The not so good?

Lackluster conspiracy plot / overall antagonist. So listen, I want to be clear that I liked Dinah Midani, so I hate that I’m talking about her in the context of the not so good stuff -- she injected a dynamic the show needed, which was a strong ass female character that doesn’t really need men for anything, and more specifically, doesn’t really need the “hero” of the show for anything either (except you know, a witness statement lol)! I loved the moments we had with her and Billy (even though, UGH BILLY!!! That washing her off in the tub scene gave me legit shivers and rage) and even the briefer moments we had between her and other characters, like Karen, her mom, even her boss Rafi. But she was also the driver of a conspiracy plot that to me, kind of missed the mark. I liked that they took those threads from DDS2 and tried to build them into a larger, more wide reaching governmental conspiracy in TPS1 but...I don’t know, it just never felt like it was realized enough, and the characters more prominent in that plot never felt more than just one-dimensional means to an end (also it didn’t feel realistic that it was basically just two people doing shit in Homeland Security on any case at given time). Her motivation worked but every time they showed her smarts and intelligence and dedication to her job, they would undercut it a bit by making her less than capable in the field, always making questionable decisions and getting her people killed. Overall, it was one of those, works on paper, doesn’t work in execution kind of storylines.

And tying this conspiracy plot that never quite worked to the lack of a strong, overall antagonist -- I don’t think it’s something a regular show would have needed, but as a comic book adaptation (particularly a Marvel Netflix one), I was expecting a bit more. Rawlins was literally never a convincing antagonist -- his inclusion felt like a necessity on the conspiracy side, but he didn’t play off Frank in any convincing way. He was a blowhard and an asshole, not really a bad guy. That misogynist asshole Wolfe had more convincing presence to me in the small number of episodes he featured in than Rawlins tbh. As for Russo, he was obviously a much stronger foil to Frank (and a compelling secondary foil to Dinah as the female lead) but since the story was actively building him up to become the villain next season, he didn’t really tick the right antagonist boxes for me this time around either. I also didn’t like how his motivations felt really muddled a lot of the time, I liked that we kept switching back and forth from oh wait Billy is a good guy, oh no, Billy is an epic piece of shit, but I would have appreciated more clarity on why he made the choices he made and why that would justify such an epic betrayal of his brother.

Heavyhanded approach to certain side issues. As well done as the grief and PTSD storylines were, most of the gun control related side plots just didn’t really work for me. I understood why they included it -- you can’t make a show like the Punisher in this current day and age without addressing the elephant in the room -- but it just felt really clunky. I guess at the very least they made the characters symbolizing both sides of the debate equally clunky? Hypocrite senator was about as annoying as NRA blowhard guy (though he certainly didn’t deserve to meet that end, RIP NRA blowhard guy). I guess I just feel torn because I have a very strong stance on this IRL but I almost feel as if I would have rather they not included it in this show if it wasn’t going to be handled with care. I’ve accepted that the Punisher and really any sort of violence driven show created for entertainment (which is...so much of our programming nowadays) can’t always be a grand statement regarding societal ills. Sometimes they just are what they are. But at least in the case of the Punisher, it didn’t feel like the violence was meant to be glorified or cheered on (I didn’t anyway) or viewed as some sort of heightened violence fantasy. It was brutal and unsettling. Anyway, all of this to say that I clearly don’t quite know about I feel about it since this was such a damn rambly paragraph lol.

Storytelling issues + plot holes. So while I’ve said that the biggest positive the show had to offer was the lack of reliance on an expected superhero formula, I think this made me struggle a bit more than usual with being able to suspend my disbelief about certain goings-ons in-show...like, the moment Frank shaves off his hobo hipster beard, how does NO ONE RECOGNIZE THE DUDE FROM LAST YEAR’S TRIAL OF THE CENTURY?? (Though I legit enjoyed the hilariously awkward silence of the Lieberman family watching the TV and being like WTF) And how does Frank literally get shot / stabbed / tortured in every other episode but manage to bounce back in a day so he could do more Punishing. Even Matt couldn’t recover that quickly if he tried! Like I don’t know, I would have liked to see Frank wearing more body armor or protecting his head or SOMETHING. And as delightfully fanservice-y the Turk cameo was, no way Frank Castle wouldn’t end him without a second thought. Of course, these are such nitpicks but they did take me out of it every so often.

So as you can see, for me there were more positives than negatives. Everything that I saw makes me extremely excited to see Frank’s Punisher in the Marvel Netflix universe again. I thought they told a very self contained story here and hit nearly all of the beats that you could want in this particular adaptation. I wouldn’t have expected them to leave it so open ended at the end but in retrospect it was a bold choice and I think one that is very considerate of this version of Frank Castle that we know. As someone who doesn’t have the emotional attachment to him via comics, I’m somewhat glad we didn’t just end this show with him as full on Punisher. I think there are more stories to explore before we get there. I also 100% expect him to reappear in DDS3 at this point and I’m super curious about where he goes in TPS2. I feel by that point, they’ll need to lean into the more comic book-y elements and it’ll be interesting to see how they handle that tonal shift.

#the punisher #marvel's the punisher #punisher spoilers #my thoughts #p talks about stuff #one day i'll figure out how to write posts like this without spending a half day on it lol #but that day is not today #also i see all of the awesome asks in my inbox and i'll start tackling those next PROMISE :)!

17 notes · View notes

noanswersingenesis · 8 years ago

Text

“Morality Comes From God”

If you’ve been alive for more than a millisecond, you’ve likely heard some imbecile droning on about how THEIR God - really, their particular idea of God - is the basis for morality. They’ll likely wax philosophical on how you can’t justify YOUR morality, because you have the audacity to not believe in their particular imaginary friend. They’ll tell you with the iron clad assurance and conviction that only comes from dogmatic belief that - even if you don’t admit it - you get all your morality tangentially from their God. He’s written His laws on your heart, so even if you don’t believe in Him, He’s responsible for your morals. They say that you can’t explain where your morals come from if God doesn’t exist. And then they’ll give you a satisfied, smug little smirk as if they’ve just invented the wheel.

Let me draw a line in the sand here. I want to make sure no one misconstrues my words, so I’ll highlight them in this fancy, bold italics text:

These people are fucking stupid.

Yes, I do mean that. Yes, I can justify that. Don’t like it? Tough shit. I’m pased the point of caring if I offend any of you. I find your willingness to pontificate and philosophize about ideas you don't even begin to understand offensive. I find your willingness to vomit those undigested, half formed ideas down the throats of children who don’t know any better offensive. I find your insistence in regurgitating illogical nonsense that has been shown repeatedly to be fallacious to be offensive. And I find your refusal to educate yourselves when the information is at your fingertips EXTREMELY offensive. In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. And, sadly, it's one that those of you who continue to make these arguments choose. Every. Single. Day.

So honestly, I could give a fuck if I offend you. I hope I do. To quote Joh Stewart:

I make no apologies about this. Not even a small one. The rebuttals to every one of these bullshit ideas has been readily available and easily accessible for anyone with a double-digit IQ to comprehend for quite some time. If you’re going to make broad pronouncements of certainty without looking at available contradictory evidence, you are a fucking idiot.

So where does morality come from, if not from a spooky, timeless Sky Wizard? It’s got to come from God!

Well, first off, that question in itself is disingenuous. You’re making the assumption that if I can't conclusively show where my morality comes from, you can simply postulate your version of Douglas Adams’ “42″ and pretend that it’s been conclusively proven to be true. See, in Adams’ fantastic The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything calculated by an enormous supercomputer named Deep Thought over a period of 7.5 million years. The believers have their own version of “42″ in God. He’s the answer for them to life, the universe, and everything. If you have a question that doesn’t have a simplistic, pre-packaged answer, they're more than happy to insert God into the answer spot and call it a day. This is known as the God of the Gaps Fallacy, and I'm sad to say that it is still a major source of theistic argumentation.

Besides that, even if you could show that God is AN answer to the question of Morality (and I don’t believe you can), you have to go further and show that God is THE answer. That means that no other path to morality can even be plausible. If I can show reasonable evidence that morality evolved over time, and is still evolving as a human construct (and I can) then it falls to you to disprove that assertion (and i’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts you can’t even BEGIN to do that). But you can’t stop there. Then you need to prove that God exists. Any God. Just prove that there’s something we can call God and define it. But don’t stop there. Now you need to prove that the God you’ve proven is YOUR God. You need to prove all of his characteristics. You need to show evidence that He’s good. That He’s loving. That He answers prayer. All of it. And maybe not those specific things. Those were examples. Whatever your idea of God is, you need to show evidence of that SPECIFIC God, not just a generalized idea of God. If you want to make pronouncements on behalf of an eternal being you need to ABSOLUTELY define that being as narrowly as possible and prove that you - a mere mortal - can speak on It’s behalf. You need to show your qualifications. And don’t stop now! You’re so close! NOW you need to show that your SPECIFIC God has authored Morality. The same way I would need to show authorship of a book, or a song, or any other creative venture. I can’t just plagiarize something that already exists and try to pass it off as my own. If someone were to show that to be the case, I’d need to defend myself. Since your God is unable or unwilling to do what should, for Him, be a simplistic task: defending Himself - one he’s done BEFORE, but that is apparently now beneath Him, it falls to you believers to defend your God.

Your argument is so weak, I don’t even need to make one of my own. It’s actually enough to simply point out that you don’t have one.

I’m not required to mount a defense (I’m going to anyway, so calm down) against something that doesn’t even have a leg to stand on. I know a lot of you reading this don’t understand that concept. Here’s how it works: If I say that I’ve seen a bear with wings, and you don’t believe me, it’s up to me to show you evidence that I really did. The onus (that means the responsibility of proving something) is ALWAYS on the person making the claim, NEVER on the skeptic. Often, believers will try to shift the burden of proof on to their skeptical counterparts through linguistics games, or faulty logic. This is known as Shifting The Burden Of Proof, and it is yet ANOTHER logical fallacy.

Regardless, for the sake of the discussion here, I will accept the burden of proof that rightfully belongs to the opposition if, in doing so, I can get them all to shut the fuck up.

So for starters, lets look at the apologist’s favorite source of evidence - The Bible - and see what IT has to say on the issue.

(Genesis 2:25) “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Ok, now lets fast forward a bit. (Genesis 3:6-7) “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” Paradox time! God is now going to punish Adam and Eve for doing something that they couldn’t know they weren’t supposed to do until after they did it. If the Tree Of Knowledge of Good And Evil “opens their eyes” then their concept of Morality came from eating the fruit, not from God. Want further confirmation of this concept? It’s right here! We see here, in this SAME account, that “knowledge” of evil seems to create evil. They had no problem being naked until they UNDERSTOOD what it meant to be naked in a different light, and then suddenly it was a problem. So being naked wasn’t “evil” until their perceptions were altered by the fruit. That seems to suggest there is no objective morality. Fancy that. We get further confirmation of this in verse 22 when God says: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” So the Biblical concept regarding morality is that it is a byproduct of perception. That altering your perception can alter your morality. That a difference in understanding can mean a difference in morality. Jolly good. Something the bible and I can agree on. It’s like the planets aligning. Doesn’t happen very often. One more quick tangent before we abandon the historical fiction reading in favor of more grown up evidences: CHRISTIAN ASSERTION: Morality comes from God. It’s objective and unchanging, just like God is unchanging. If something is wrong, it’s always wrong! ATHEIST RESPONSE: So then slavery is ok? Killing homosexuals is ok? Rape is ok if you pay the girl’s father? Killing babies is ok? *lists off dozens of scriptures supporting and/or condoning these and other horrific acts* ILLOGICAL CHRISTIAN RETORT: You need to look at that through the context of their culture. The time and place it was written. You can’t expect God to transcend time and geography concerning moral laws. Actually, I do. And if a god existed, they would. “Don’t Own Other People” and “Don’t Rape” would have been on the list of 10 commandments, rather than some Ego stroking bullshit about graven images and saying his name with a shitty attitude.

So now that we’ve dispensed with Harry Potter BC, let’s look at some evidence that ISN’T circular, anecdotal, unreliable, and generally fucking retarded:

The Veil Of Ignorance

The single most damning retort the religious idea of God-centric Morality, is that we simply don’t NEED God to be moral. There have been many arguments that have shown as much, but none so iron clad as the "veil of ignorance", a method of determining morality proposed in 1971 by American philosopher John Rawls. 1971 46 years ago. So there’s no fucking excuse for you NOT to know about it - at least in concept if not in name - if you’re making grand pronouncements about the definitive nature of the link between Morality and God. The basic concept is this: We have two people (let’s call them Steve and Jim) and Jim wants to kill Steve. Steve, upon finding out about this, blurts out “You can’t do that! It’s wrong!’ Well, how can Steve actually KNOW it’s wrong? And for that matter, how can he convince Jim? Enter the Veil of Ignorance. We remove Steve and Jim from the equation and simply state that two individuals will be involved in this scenario. One will be killing, and one will be killed. Behind the Veil, Steve and Jim don’t know which is which. Either of them could be the killer, or the victim. Now how do Steve and Jim feel about killing? Neither one of them WANT to be killed. So both are aware that - at least in this sense - killing is wrong. This concept works for ANYTHING. Try it out. Don’t think Homosexuals should be able to get married? Take a step behind the Veil of Ignorance. Now you, and a dozen individual are there - all ignorant to your gender. Your race. Your sexuality. Your religion. Everything. You’re nondescript person-blobs. One of you will have one of your fundamental rights denied because of a difference from the group. You don’t get to know what right. Perhaps all of the others are men, and you’re a woman. Perhaps they’re all Muslims, and you’re a christian. Perhaps you and 11 others are all white, and the outsider is black. You don’t get to know what the difference is, or who it falls to. Which side do you argue for? Exclusion based on a difference, or inclusion regardless of a difference? Suppose you argued for exclusion, and it turned out that the difference was that you were the only Christian. Would you be ok with that? The thought exercises you can do with the Veil are endless, and practically universally applicable. The core of the concept is that morality is an evolved response, and we as thinking humans know DAMN well when something is moral or immoral through basic logic. If you think the thing happening to or effecting someone else is actually happening to or effecting YOU, then you’re more likely to be honest about that. It’s just that some of us like to pretend they don’t understand that basic concept, so they can suggest that we all collectively rely on an old book that’s open to various interpretations and has, at best, a shaky moral grounding.

So now, let’s sidetrack for a moment so I can talk about this video: If There’s No God, Murder Isn’t Wrong, because that’s what started this tirade. This video is moronic, and the arguments it puts forth somehow aren’t even consistent within the span of the 5 minuet video! I know, I was shocked too. And let’s not ignore the fact that there are refutations to the arguments ATTACHED TO THE VIDEO if you view it on Youtube (but why would a believer in the validity of the arguments look at contradictory evidence? I mean really. Look at two sides of an issue? That’s crazy talk!) both in the comments section, and in response videos. There’s also videos and articles that totally dismantle the faulty reasoning of the video that are available if you’re willing to undertake the apparently excruciating labor of doing a 45 second search for the name of the video on Google (this was the very first link that came up. Seriously, it didn’t even take 30 seconds. How busy are you people if you don’t even have time to do that?!?) But since I know that none of you are going to take the time to look at any of that evidence, or read any of the things that have been written about it for the better part of a century (you can see the seeds of this sort of nonsense as far back as Thomas Aquinas in the mid 1200′s) let alone just what’s been written in the last dozen years, I’ll do the leg work for you. Let’s look at the transcript for this video, and I’ll explain to you why it’s absolute horseshit. The words of Dennis Prager, the author of the video, will be in bold, and my responses will be in normal font.

There is no God, Murder is STILL (usually) Wrong.

Do you believe that good and evil exist? Let me stop you right there. You’re already being disingenuous, because you’re not defining your terms. Given that you’re arguing on behalf of God, and given that this isn't my first rodeo, I'm going to wager dollars to donuts (again) that at some point in this video you're going to attempt to confuse us with the ambiguity of your language. So lets nip that right in the fucking bud.

GOOD - To be desired, or approved of. That which is morally right. To be beneficial or advantageous to someone or something. Appropriate to a particular purpose. EVIL - Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Harmful, or tending to harm. (Of a force or spirit) Embodying or associated with the forces of the devil. Something that is harmful or undesirable.

Now, by these definitions, I do believe in the concepts of good and evil. I have a feeling that’s not AT ALL what you’re driving at. Let’s see...

The answer to this question separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values. No, it doesn’t. Unless you can actually show that, you're lying. Not to give out spoilers, but I watched the rest of your video, and you are NOT able to show that. So stop lying.

Let me offer the clearest possible example: murder. Is murder wrong? Is it evil? Nearly everyone would answer yes. But now I’ll pose a much harder question: How do you know? I am sure that you think that murder is wrong. But how do you know? You actually asked three separate and distinct questions there. I can't help but notice that you tried to just lump the first two together - as if they’re the same thing - and plod on before anyone could notice that they aren't. Is murder wrong? The short answer is, “Not always.” Which you would think would be painfully obvious to you, given all of the murders committed by God in the Bible that you see NO issue with. What you're trying to do here, which is a common tactic when you're attempting to paint someone into a corner, is to couch the argument in black and white terms. Either it’s 100% wrong or it isn't wrong at all, ever. This is called a False Dichotomy, and it’s yet ANOTHER logical fallacy (sometimes called False Dilemma or Black and White Fallacy).

Is murder evil? Generally, if we use the definition given above, we could say that it is. It causes harm. There's really no way around that. I suppose that you could come up with a scenario where murder would not fit the definition of evil, but I can't think of one off my head. But is it “evil” in the spiritual, metaphysical sense? Because that seems to be what Mr. Prager is driving at. No. The only people who would accept THAT definition of evil are neck-deep in the kool-aid of religious terminology, and are fastidiously working their fingers to the bone in an attempt to make the language they’re arguing with ambiguous. It’s the only way they have any hope of winning the argument.

If I asked you how you know that that the earth is round, you would show me photographs from outer space, or offer me measurable data. But what photographs could you show, what measurements could you provide, that prove that murder or rape or theft is wrong? And THIS is why we have flat-earth imbeciles infecting our collective consciousness like a goddamn virus. Because idiots think a photograph they can’t verify or a measurement they can't reproduce or replicate are suitable forms of proof. If you want to KNOW that the earth is round, you’re shit out of luck. You can’t. Not really. You can have a measure of certainty, especially with solid proofs like these. But you can’t be totally certain. Just ask René Descartes. Should that sliver of doubt sway us to accept that a flat earth is plausible? Fuck no! But (and the irony here is more than palpable) that same sliver of doubt is often the BEST evidence available for believers. What evidence can I show that murder, rape, or theft is wrong? Again, the short answer is “Better evidence than you can dredge up from your goddamn bible.”

The fact is...you can’t. There are scientific facts, but without God there are no moral facts. There aren't scientific facts. Not the way that you’re meaning, with black and white certainty. There are theories. Those theories evolve and change. There aren’t moral facts either. You just like to pretend there are because it makes you sleep better at night. You still haven’t provided a shred of evidence for them, but you keep clutching at your bible like Linus to his blue blanket. Show me the moral code you derive from the scriptures. Would it, perhaps, go something like: Sacrifice, rape, rape, kill, rape, kill, kill, kill, misogyny, don’t eat shellfish, don’t blend fabrics, don’t make statues, kill, rape, don’t work on Saturdays, don’t say God’s name bad, rape, kill, don’t desire things that other people have, sacrifice, where you stick your penis totally matters (it doesn't matter if you're consenting adults), kill, kill, rape, own slaves, kill the children, rape the children if you have money, beats the slaves if you don’t kill them, women are objects, kill, rape, kill, praise the invisible tyrant for the stellar example he’s setting with all the killing? With morals like that, we’d be in a much better place these days, eh? Or are you just going to cherry pick the parts that you like? Love thy neighbor, don’t steal, etc... and ignore the rest of it? You know, because at the end of the day, your moral code surpasses that of the Bible.

In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion. But only opinions. Every atheist philosopher I have read or debated on this subject has acknowledged that if there is no God, there is no objective morality. There’s not objective morality WITH God. Your own Bible proves as much. God’s decree to Noah after the flood: “Whosoever sheds a man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. A doctrine of vengeance. God’s decree via Jesus: “Ye have heard it said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you that ye resist not evil. Whosoever smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also.” God’s moral law is overturned... by God. The reason those godless heathen atheists “acknowledged” that morality is subjective is because they’re not idiots.

Judeo-Christian values are predicated on the existence of a God of morality. In other words, only if there is a God who says murder is wrong, is murder wrong. Otherwise, all morality is opinion. The entire Western world – what we call Western Civilization – is based on this understanding. Again, you haven’t even begun to crawl, and you’re trying to run. Start at the beginning.

Now, let me make two things clear. First, this doesn't mean that if you don't believe in God, you can’t be a good person. There are plenty of kind and moral individuals who don’t believe in God and Judeo-Christian values. But the existence of these good people has nothing – nothing – to do with the question of whether good and evil really exist if there is no God. I’m with you so far...

Second, there have been plenty of people who believed in God who were not good people; indeed, more than a few have been evil – and have even committed evil in God’s name. The existence of God doesn't ensure people will do good. I wish it did. The existence of God only ensures that good and evil objectively exist and are not merely opinions. And you lost me on the last sentence. It doesn't. You just think it does. You can't conclusively show that to be true. So what is happening here is both of us have opinions, and you are trying to claim a divine mandate for yours. A divine mandate that you can neither prove, or show to be in any way different from my opinion that you’ve asserted has no divine mandate. So remind me again why what you’re saying is anything beyond wishful thinking and speculation? Because I’m not seeing it.

Without God, we therefore end up with what is known as moral relativism – meaning that morality is not absolute, but only relative to the individual or to the society. Without God, the words “good” and “evil” are just another way of saying “I like” and “I don’t like.” If there is no God, the statement “Murder is evil” is the same as the statement “I don't like murder.” Called it! No, those words have very REAL definitions. And, as I have already shown, the definitions for them are fine. We can understand the morality of an action (even murder) without your word games. In NO way is it simply saying “I like” or “I don’t like.” This is yet ANOTHER fallacy, in your apparent race to make sure that you hit ALL of them in a 5 minuet video. This one is known as a Strawman Argument.

Now, many will argue that you don't need moral absolutes; people won’t murder because they don't want to be murdered. But that argument is just wishful thinking. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn’t want to be murdered, but that hardly stopped them from murdering about a hundred million people. Wow. Barely got through the last fallacy, and you’re on to another one. That’s goddamn impressive. This one is the False Cause Fallacy. Essentially, you’re arguing that once a moral concept is understood, it can’t be ignored. Do you honestly think that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any other perpetrator of what we would consider as immoral acts thought what they were doing was justified? I mean in a moralistic sense. Obviously they thought the ends justified the means. Kind of like the priest that wants to get his dick sucked by an altar boy. Just because practitioners of your religion decide, on a regular basis (seriously, there are multiple news stories every fucking week) to molest children does not indicate on it’s own that religious morality is invalid. What we CAN prove is that there are cases where someone acted in a manner that we would generally describe as immoral, and justified the actions as Moral with the aid of religion. Here’s just one example (and I've seen more than a few dozen just like it) where a horrific act was committed BECAUSE of belief in a God, and justified by the perpetrator as moral.

It is not a coincidence that the rejection of Judeo-Christian values in the Western world – by Nazism and Communism – led to the murder of all these innocent people. I like that you actually included the ACTUAL reasons (Nazism and Communism) or at least the largest contributing factors, in your attempt to link these deaths to disbelief. See the False Cause Fallacy directly above, because you’re doing it again.

It is also not a coincidence that the first societies in the world to abolish slavery – an institution that existed in every known society in human history – were Western societies rooted in Judeo-Christian values. And so were the first societies to affirm universal human rights; to emancipate women; and to proclaim the value of liberty. Don’t you DARE try to take credit for the abolishment of slavery, and women’s rights! How fucking stupid do you think people are? The bible is overflowing with misogyny, inequality, and INSTRUCTIONS FOR SLAVE MASTERS. If God wants credit for abolishing slavery, he fucking should have said something about it in his own goddamn book. But he didn’t. Unless, of corse, you mean the parts where he endorsed it.

Today, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values and moral absolutes has led to a world of moral confusion. There's only one person I see here who’s confused, and he’s trying desperately to convince me that I need his imaginary friend to tell me not to stab someone in the face.

In the New York Times, in March 2015, a professor of philosophy confirmed this. He wrote: “What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun? Would you be surprised? I was.” First, this is anecdotal because your source isn’t named. Don’t worry, I looked it up for you. The article referenced is here, and the “philosopher” is Justin P. McBrayer, who IS an actual philosopher with an actual PHd. Thats kind of surprising, because most of the stuff i looked up on him read like something from Ken Ham. Regardless, this is a blatant Strawman Assertion (see above) and serves to do nothing but shock the reader into agreement. This is called an Appeal To Emotion Fallacy, or more specifically an Appeal to Fear (also called argumentum ad metum) and is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by using deception and propaganda in attempts to increase fear or prejudice toward a competing idea. “If you don’t believe in God, children will learn to kill each other for fun.” This level of psychological fuckery would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

The professor then added: “The overwhelming majority of college freshmen view moral claims as mere opinions.” That’s a bit of an overstatement. And even if it wasn’t, what does that have to do with the validity of your assertions? Not a damn thing.

So, then, whatever you believe about God or religion, here is a fact: Without a God who is the source of morality, morality is just a matter of opinion. So, if you want a good world, the death of Judeo-Christian values should frighten you. Should it? And why exactly should it frighten me? Based on the complete lack of evidence you’ve offered? The crux of the assertion made here is no different than that of an adult man who, having grown up, left the comfort of his parents home, and began a life for himself laments, “But who will stop me from eating ice cream three meals a day? If no parental figure prevents me, then why shouldn’t I? And what of my friends and coworkers? What’s to stop THEM from eating ice cream three meals a day? Soon, the whole world will be obscenely overweight!” What frightens me is that people like you present fallacy after fallacy after motherfucking fallacy, and try to pass them off like carefully reasoned proofs. What frightens me is the neanderthal imbeciles that see no issue with anything you’ve said. What terrifies me is the notion that these same imbeciles want to suspend the rights of others and hold the scientific community hostage to appease the shallow, illogical, unproven, and wholly ridiculous concept that they have formed in their malfunctioning brains of exactly who or what God is. That’s far more frightening than your unfounded assertions.

So, seeing as how there wasn’t a drop of water in that well, lets look at some more evidence that morality has a very human origin.

Mirror Neurons

A neuron is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals. These signals between neurons occur via specialized connections called synapses. Neurons can connect to each other to form neural networks. They are major components of the brain.

A mirror neuron is one that fires both when an individual preforms an action AND when the individual observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the observed behavior, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate species. You can click on the link above if you want more accurate information about them, or do one of those 45 second Google searches that require so much effort. I will give the “as I understand it, as a mostly scientifically illiterate layperson” version below. All of this is summarized from the wikipedia article.

In the 80s and 90s, neurophysiologists at the University of Parma placed electrodes in a monkey’s head to study neurons. They were looking at neurons associated with the control of hand and mouth actions, like picking something up or moving it. They had the monkey reach for bits of food, and recorded the movement of neurons in relation to what motions the monkey made. They found that some neurons responded when the monkey observed a person picking up a piece of food, and ALSO when the monkey itself picked up the food. Further study showed identical results corresponding to mouth actions and facial gestures. Still further experiments confirmed that about 10% of neurons in the parts of the brain they were studying have "mirror" properties and give similar responses to observed actions.

In 2002 it was discovered that this mirror system also responds to the sound of actions. Reports on mirror neurons have been widely published and confirmed, with mirror neurons found in both inferior frontal and inferior parietal regions of the brain. Recently, evidence from functional neuro-imaging strongly suggests that humans have similar mirror neurons systems: researchers have identified brain regions which respond during both action and observation of action. Furthermore, functional magnetic resonance imaging can examine the entire brain at once, and suggests that a much wider network of brain areas shows mirror properties in humans than previously thought. These additional areas include the somatosensory cortex and are thought to make the observer feel what it feels like to move in the observed way.

I sense some of you glazing over. So let’s look at what this means for our morals.

If you are struck in the face, and I observe this happening, these neurons mirror the sensation in my own brain. To some degree, I feel you getting slapped. The speculation is that this is why we’re able to feel empathy for one another. Furthermore, this explains a large part of our evolution of morality. Seeing someone else suffer, we’re motivated to help them because it’s really like helping ourselves. When paired with the veil of ignorance, I fail to see any reason that stands up to scrutiny why morality should come from a God, and I see no reason to doubt that morality is a byproduct of evolution and a correctly functioning brain.

The Moral Landscape

Philosopher, author, and neuroscientist Sam Harris made this assertion in his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: “Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim Algebra, we will see tht there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality.” And he’s right. We don’t see a morality that is based in a particular religious code that stands up to logical scrutiny. You don’t steal? So what? Neither do these individuals, and they come from a variety of different religions backgrounds - some of them entirely irreligious. The only time a particular code of morality can be specifically associated with a religion is when it comes into conflict with societal or generally accepted normalcy. You think gay men should be killed for offending God? Well, THAT belief is entirely religious and, not coincidentally, entirely illogical. According to Harris, our morality has peaks and valleys, high points and low points. We can make general distinctions between those high and low places, much like we can tell the difference between a mountain and a valley. He argues that we can still have a sort of moral objectivity, based entirely on science and reasoning, that does not in any was resemble the objective morality postulated by the religious. By the same token, it doesn’t resemble the version of purely subjective morality offered up by those who don’t understand the subtleties in play here, or those who would purposefully erect a strawman over them to bolster their own assertions. “If our well-being depends upon the interaction between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some world views will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery.” In other words, we can objectively show the differences between the mountains and valleys in our moral landscape, without the aid of a sky wizard and his book of fables, but the differences between the various mountains are largely subjective, as are those between the valleys. Reading the book (which everyone should do) will flush this idea out in much greater detail, but I’m only concerned with the core concept here. I would strongly encourage you to check out the book for yourself.

A Logical Moral Code

So, let’s use these ideas to try and formulate a basic,logical moral code. Just as an example, we’ll use Killing, Murder, and Butchery. Let’s start with some quick definitions so we’re all on the same page. These are MY definitions from my own head, and have nothing to do with dictionary definitions or what have you. This is how I use these terms.

Killing - The taking of another life. Any other life. Man, woman, child, cat, dog, elephant, or whatever the hell Donald Trump is (sentient Cheetos powder?) for any reason.

Murder - Any killing that can’t be logically excused. An unlawful killing.

Butchery - Killing for sport, or for fun. Specifically, killing for no other purpose than the enjoyment of ending another’s life.

Ok. So now, is killing wrong? No. Period. We can’t possibly suggest that killing is wrong, as the bible does, (unless God says it’s ok... or rather commands it to be done) because there are times when killing someone would be the only justifiable action to take. Suppose that someone has broken into your home, and is holding your child at knifepoint. The only way to save the child is to kill the intruder. Is it justifiable to terminate the life of that individual? Of corse. No thinking person would advocate letting someone kill your child to save the life of an intruder. But WHY? Because God said so? I think not. It’s because we’ve evolved to look out for our own. We’ve developed an instinct to protect ourselves, our children, our family unit, our tribe, and so on. Because, to put it bluntly, the idiots who didn’t protect their children from danger didn’t get to have any grandkids. The idiots who didn’t protect their tribe got overtaken by another tribe that DID. Suppose your friend is in a tremendous amount of pain, and begs you to end his life. For the sake of argument, there’s no medical help available and you won’t be legally responsible for your actions. What’s the better alternative? Allow him to suffer, or to do as he asks and end his suffering? The religious mindset here is usually to allow the suffering to continue, because they’re obsessed with their own illogical concept of “life.” It’s always better to have a suffering individual, yearning desperately for the relief of the grave, than to allow a thinking being to make their own decisions regarding their own life and death, right? Because what we think Jesus wants is more important than what you want. Because bible. Personally, I think anything less than honoring their wishes and sending them to a peaceful oblivion is horrific, monstrous, and morally abhorrent. The news would suggest that many believers disagree with me, and that somehow God’s universal, eternal, flawless laws have missed my heart yet again. Maybe he inscribed them on my liver, which would explain my love for gin. Who knows?

We kill animals for food as well (even though this issue is regularly debated) because, as a collective, we’ve decided, for the time being, that since we’re omnivores and we’ve evolved to eat meat, that we shouldn’t feel guilty about killing a chicken or a cow for sustenance. That might change. There’s a vocal minority in the vegetarian/vegan community that is making some compelling arguments for us to stop killing other animals for food. Honestly, when it comes to this issue, I’m torn. On the one hand, it is causing the suffering and death of a sentient being for my own selfish reasons. On the other hand, I love bacon cheeseburgers and fried chicken. I’m willing to admit that I’m less than consistent on this issue, as I think MOST people would if they were honest with themselves. But murder is wrong, right? Yup. I think it’s safe to say that unlawful, or unjustifiable killing is “wrong.” When I say “wrong” I mean a compelling argument against it can be formed, such that the overwhelming majority of thinking people will agree that it’s immoral. Not objectively in a “Because God said so” way, but in a “we’ve all agreed that this makes logical sense” way. So yeah, it’s wrong. But again, why? Because it’s not beneficial. And worse than that, it’s harmful to the group as a whole. Now, I can hear you saying, “Well, it’s beneficial to ME if I want to kill Tim.” Fair enough. In the same way eating 6 gallons of ice cream for dinner would be benificial to you if you have a weakness for ice cream. In the short term, the ice cream will taste great, and you’ll be happy. So why doesn’t everyone just eat ice cream all the time? Simple. Because they’re not imbeciles, and they don’t need someone to tell them that eating that much ice cream will eventually have consequences. It tastes great till they’re sawing off your diabetic feet, and replacing your heart for the 18th time. Just because you WANT to do something doesn’t make it beneficial. And if something has a greater propensity for harm than benefit, the collective decides against it. You still might personally want to do it (remember that example we used of the priest getting his knob gobbled by the alter boys?) but the group as a whole thinks it’s a bad idea. So you can still DO it if you want, but then you run the risk of being found out and moved to a NEW church to molest DIFFERENT boys. Because, religiously speaking, that’s how we deal with immoral behavior. Remember that time a science teacher raped a child and got sent to teach at a different school? Yeah, me neither. But seriously, that’s why we have LAWS against murder, instead of just trusting that the God Jesus Bible Magic laws that are apparently inscribed on all our hearts will keep us safe. Because that would be stupid. It’s viewed as wrong because the collective has agreed that it isn’t beneficial, and actually harms the group as a whole. Not because your invisible sky wizard said so. Because again, that would be stupid. So what about Butchery? Glad you asked! Butchery is “wrong” also, but for different reasons than murder. Before you go trying to bring God up again, He has nothing to do with it, so settle down. Murder is a societal issue. If Tim and Bill want to kill each other while they’re alone, thousands of miles from civilization, where the law can’t touch them, then that’s entirely their business. I realize that some of you don't like that, and you need the feel-good bedtime story of a vengeful, judicious God sitting up in heaven, balancing the scales for every deed done on this planet in order to ensure fairness. Again, your wishful thinking has no place here. Unless you’ve come to the table with some hard evidence in your favor, you can just pack up that sack of nothing you’re trying to bargain with and fuck right off. Not interested. The problem with butchery is that it shows a fundamental flaw of logic and compassion. Remember those mirror neurons we talked about? Well, for someone to derive pleasure from the suffering of someone or something else shows that they’re not functioning properly. Try to follow me here, ok? If God made Albert Fish, and John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer, etc... (If you don’t know who the are already, only click on the links if you’re prepared to read some dark shit. Seriously, some of it is horrifying) and they got sexually aroused from killing people, necrophilia, blood, severed limbs, and the like, then why did the laws He wrote on their heart backfire? I mean, we could look at the correlation between serial killers and head injuries (the first link to come up after another one of those excruciating 45 second Google searches) or physical/psychological abuse and clearly show that these individuals are malfunctioning. That they’ve been damaged, and are no longer functioning properly. But then that would remove the need for a mystical super being to swoop in and save the day, so lets just sweep that evidence under the rug, amiright?

So when we see or hear something like this, part of our brain reacts to it on an instinctual level. We suffer when a member of our group suffers. And we can flip that switch simply by removing the other individual from our group. For example, we feel compassion for the soldier being gunned down in WW2. Unless that soldier is a Nazi. Then he’s not on our team, and it’s not so difficult to watch him get blown to bits. Same thing works with everything from different religions (crusades, jihad) political parties, and even different sports teams. We’re hardwired by evolution to support our group, and fuck the opposition. We can apply this brand of logic, and construct a working moral code for ourselves, our families, and our community. We do already. We just don’t recognize that we’re doing it. Some of us don't care enough to think about it and float through life like unthinking zombies. Some of us ponder and philosophize and read in an effort to better understand our choices, and see if we can make better ones. And then some of us just lazily plug God into every gap that comes our way and call it a day. After all, what’s the point of evidence if it doesn’t point to Jesus?

I might add more to this, I’m not sure. For now, I hope this has been at least somewhat educational to someone. Feel free to respond to it. I will reply to any and all legitimate criticisms.

Don't bother telling me that I shouldn't swear so much, or that I'm being unnecessarily hostile, or that I'm going to alienate people with my attitude. I don’t give a shit.

Thanks for reading! ~ Apostate Paul

#apologetics #morality #bible #religion #god #philosophy

3 notes · View notes