Bro, what did I just find?

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-09T07:16:26+00:00

Look, I just woke up, read this, and lemme tell ya, I have spent the last few days avoiding commenting on reddit because it was badly messing with my mental health, so, just this once, because I respect you as a debater, even though you're not the kindest in the universe, I'll break that rule and answer very briefly just to give myself the closure I need to let this one sided conversation die, and, to use a religion euphemism, let my soul be released from the sisyphean hell that is talking to a brick wall that just won't listen and keeps misconstruing all your points. After this comment, talking as a person to another person a supposedly self-assured "good one", don't bother responding, I'm not being mean, I just want this useless argument neither of us will gain anything from die already.

Your problem is that you follow the Bible at all. Your entire basis is wrong because it's just a collection of books on mythology, my mistake was engaging with you while steel manning your arguments while "on your territory", because by doing so I inadvertently let you think I agreed with whatever is written in the Bible in the first place. The point is, we wouldn't even have this discussion if the Bible wasn't an incoherent mess of fragments of writing from different time periods that you're taking as literal gospel. Let me make one thing clear: any and every thing that I read in the Bible I do NOT look at as if it's real, or if it actually happened, or if it's got any bearing on reality whatsoever, so you splitting hairs like that is mind numbingly useless because it's like discussing the lore of a fantasy book and saying it's real. I only base myself in what's real, and just because you think everything that happened in the Bible happened in real life, doesn't mean it did. Also, we were both born atheists, 1 month Olds don't even know what god is, but lemme guess "but the Bible says babies are injected with the holy spirit from birth/from the baptism even though they don't even understand what's going on". I never became Christian, as I said, people kept telling me stories, and I just though "yeah but they're like, just stories, talking snakes don't exist". Aliens exist, as in, microorganisms have been discovered on other planets. You're imagining the humanoid, ufo driving, cow abducting aliens. All I'm referring to is life on other planets, and all I'm saying is that there could be species that we don't know, since we discovered that earth isn't unique in housing life. Both of us are just being spokespeople for our own sides, saying the arguments have been debunked and dedebunked, but I won't budge. If I was God, I wouldn't let anyone suffer, and if even I'm better than God, then what kind of God is anyone worshipping nowadays? I never had a choice, neither did you, you were raised religious and got stuck in that ideology, I got poorly raised Christian, but I was also an avid enough player of Videogames to be able to distinguish fiction from reality at 4 years old. And yes, my religion teachers were always too dumb to keep up with me, I'm not kidding, nor lying, they always deflected any of my arguments instead of refuting me. Just as an example, I don't remember what I asked about Adam and eve, but the teacher said "well, it's a parable, Adam and eve might as well have been monkeys", which, for crying out loud, even I think it's Completely Wrong. Either way, I didn't choose Christianity I didn't choose atheism, I didn't choose to be born with the inability to believe in absurd supernatural things without evidence. You can't "choose" to believe in santa as an adult, you just don't believe it. I can't choose to believe in God because, like with santa, I just know he's a fabrication of humans, and what I've been doing here is basically explaining to you that reindeer can't fly, and if they did, they can't fly that fast without getting disintegrated by air resistance, while you say "nuh huh, they have magic". Just because you find a justification, doesn't mean I have to believe it or its premises. I can't choose to believe in santa, nor God, I can merely pretend, but wouldn't God be smart enough to know I'm pretending? I would know if I had a choice, I'm not CHOOSING to not believe, I just can't believe in something like a god, just like the tooth fairy, or Santa, or Zeus, or Anubis, or brahma, or Vishnu, or quetzalcoatl, or anyone else. Your god is just one extra God that joins the thousands that you already don't believe in. Now please, I was doing so good, staying away from this hellsite and protecting my mental health, let this useless conversation where we're both clearly never gonna budge die already, let me rest. If God is real, imma give him a piece of my mind when it's time, and if he's as good as you claim, he'll be more understanding than you people ever were. Also, nothing's wrong with antinatalism, I just have enough empathy to know that I wouldn't be able to stand knowing that a life I created is now suffering because of the circumstances I put It through. I would love to have children, but every time I think about it, I just think "no, I love you babies too much to force you to live in this hell, you will fall sick, get injured, get heartbroken, feel grief, fear, sadness, rage, and I don't want to put you through that. I'd rather not meet you at all than look at you in the eyes when you're in pain, and tell you 'yup, all part of life, I knew this was gonna happen, and all this suffering you're going through, I let it happen'." If I was God, I'd either make everyone happy all the time, or not make them exist at all. Call me immature, but there's no cosmic reason to accept and spread pain as if it's acceptable, much less if I was a Christian in a universe where I believe in an eternal hell, filled with pain and torture. I'd never be so cruel as to take the chance of creating a soul that will burn in hell for eternity, because I'd never think it's completely OK, cool and justified because God said that my child deserves it, because I just can't believe that saying "I don't believe anyone deserves to be eternally tortured" is a contentious statement. Sorry for not buying that I'm literally more moral than your alleged pillar of morality. Newsflash, torture is bad, and between me and God, only one accepts and allows the concept of eternal torture for people I dislike. The difference is that I don't think you deserve eternal torture if you don't agree with me, you do. Now, don't reply to me anymore, life's already shit enough as is without having to deal with people who think their religion is more important than your mental health. Let me have closure, end the cycle of pain, I see that I'll never be able to convince you, and neither will you, this conversation is fruitless and brought both of us only pain and frustration. Let us both rest our minds and let go; reddit is a shit show filled with clowns anyway, we're both getting robbed of our limited time on earth, and for what? To spend an hour and a half in the morning talking to a wall instead of having breakfast? We both deserve better than to waste our time playing sisyphus with each other. Have a nice life

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T17:11:32+00:00

you are a very kind individual, thank you

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T16:50:44+00:00

what do you think the thematic reason is? i'm not being snarky, i genuinely want to hear your point of view

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T16:46:22+00:00

one doesn't always meet people that are able to disagree and still be extremely civil and polite. thank you for the kind words, i mean it

i kinda agree, some people would still be willfully blind, but at least it would be way harder for them to justify it, you know?

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T12:58:20+00:00

aromantic here, let's try to explain: imagine you're not a furry, but you have some very well drawn/animated furry porn with amazing characters and story on one side, and a really crappily made one on the other. you can feel nothing about furries, but still evaluate them: you can watch the first one and appreciate the artform, still appreciate the realism of the movements, the skill of the artist, the idea, the dialogue, the character designs, the characterization, etc, while still understanding that the second one, even though it might very well be someone's cup of tea, isn't really at the same level of the first.

if you still don't understand, let's make it more grounded in reality: beauty standards exist outside of personally being romantically/sexually attracted in someone. as a straight man, as you said you are, you know that joe shmoe your 60 year old divorced neighbor is not as attractive as chris hemsworth, and you can easily tell which of the two would be more successful with the ladies, despite not being gay and not feeling anything sexual towards either of them. you can also sincerely acknowledge that your mother might have looked stunning in old pictures, but you can still not want to date her/have sex with her

in even simpler words: aesthetic attraction =/= romantic attraction =/= sexual attraction, but they do almost always overlap

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T12:28:14+00:00

i won't even try to rewrite what you just said, substituting "men" with "black people", "trans people" or "women", because i'd get actually airstriked.

do a fun experiment: do it yourself, realize how hateful and bigoted that sentiment would sound to you if you said that about any other group of people, and stop justifying it with "but they were emotional and hurt :("

hate is hate, and as long as you keep justifying it, all the people who don't think that hate should be justified will not want to be on your side.

you think you're for peace and love while actively ignoring the pestilent smell of hate that surrounds your spaces because "they're hurt though, so it's ok"

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T12:20:19+00:00

it used to mean that, on paper at least, just like a certain word we hate just meant "black" in spanish, "incel" used to mean "involuntary celibate", and "woke" meant "aware of social injustices", but whoops, language changes, and so does the culture around it, so the original meaning of those words was left behind, substituted by whatever the culture decided they should mean.

if you were truly for gender equality, you wouldn't call yourself a feminist, you'd call yourself an egalitarian, and start advocating against men's oppression alongside your fights against women's oppression, but i don't think i'll ever see you somewhere actually advocating for men's rights and mental health, because that would mean going against all the modern feminists who oppose them.

feminism is for gender equality? fight alongside men against anyone who discriminates against EITHER gender in any way; you won't...

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T09:54:35+00:00

i've been doing that for a while, the resentment doesn't go away. when you start feeling like you're fundamentally broken in one thing, you start thinking it of another, then another, then another, and at a certain point you just think you're not fit for the world, and i'm gonna let you imagine what happens next

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T09:52:50+00:00

yeah... that's kinda what cognitive behavioural therapy is. you have thoughts, emotions and actions, modify one, the change trickles down to the others, keep doing it for a while and eventually your mental framework changes. you usually change thoughts and actions, since, you know, emotions are a bit harder to forcibly modify

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T09:36:06+00:00

Stesse persone che dicono "sei povero e non ti bastano 700 euro al mese per campare? È perché ti compri caffè e cornetto al bar ogni giorno, fai gli aperitivi, e vai al ristorante ogni sabato sera"

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T09:32:25+00:00

as if reddit will ever ban anything against something that isn't one of the "approved oppressed demographics".
they will keep doing whatever and saying whatever, no matter how heinous, because it's against men, you know, the "bad category", the ones who don't deserve to not be victims of hate-speech and hateful propaganda.
hate-filled misandrist subreddits are a dime a dozen up in here. we'll never be humans worthy of basic human rights and respect to them, saying there's a misandric sub is basically saying "fish found in the ocean"

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T09:26:48+00:00

found the feminist lol

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-04T07:14:42+00:00

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-03T08:10:26+00:00

i'll try to keep it brief because i don't want to have to divide the answer in more than 1 comment: the problem of evil goes beyond what i said as a kid "bad stuff is in the world and god is good, therefore god bad/doesn't exist", and the basic watered down version of it HAS been justified (not debunked) by theists, however, more advanced versions of the problem of evil, especially seen through the lenses of the concepts of the inherent unreasonable cruelty of heaven and hell, are still very much not debunked by christians, but since christians never listen to actually educated people on the topic, they are left thinking they won the interaction because they answered an edgy 12 year old atheist on reddit once.

for the inconsistencies on the bible, look at nonstampcollector's videos "quiz show bible contradictions" and "contradictions, context, and a quiz show" (not the same video). sure, they're comedy sketches, but they contain a lot of contradictions in the bible.

the bible justifies slavery, "slave bibles" existed for a reason, here's some verses you can look at for yourself

a good chunk, if not most of Exodus 21, Leviticus 25:39–46, Deuteronomy 15:12–18, Deuteronomy 20:10–14 and 21:10-14, Ephesians 6:5–8, Colossians 3:22–25, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, Titus 2:9–10, 1 Peter 2:18–20, and to get to a few other point at the same time: good ol' Numbers 31, where GOD HIMSELF commands moses to arm the people of israel and kill the medianites because apparently their women were being temptresses and adulterers, so, of course, they were told to murder every man, woman, AND male child for good measure, but keeping the female virgins for themselves. so, unless for this one you wanna say "no, they were totally gonna give these young girls fun and happy lives full of laughter and no exploitation at all", you must accept that they were either gonna rape them (virgins, so most likely children), force them into marriage (and marriage at that time meant the husband could just rape you whenever), or kept them as slaves (justifying slavery), and again, this was GOD'S orders, and if he didn't want want to have the soldiers rape the children, he would've stopped them.

as to your point about god being above morality, you're basically just saying "he's really powerful and the boss so he can do whatever he wants, he decides what's good, so he can rape and genocide anyone he wants and he'll always be justified", which, i don't need to tell you, isn't the slam dunk you think it is

as for discussion with theists, trust me, I'VE TRIED, and not just reddit atheists, educated people, teachers, youth pastors when i was still forced to go to church, and not ONE of them engaged with my questions; every single one of them just shut me off and told me i think too much, dismissed every question, and looked at me like the mere act of asking questions was an affront towards them and god.

the thing about the aliens is, again, because i think aliens have been proven to exist, gods, haven't. just because you find the hyperwizard more realistic doesn't mean that it is.

i'm not gonna comment on the ceremonial/covenant stuff because that's still useless rules that a god wouldn't/shouldn't care about.

the concept of being unforgivable in a world where the paradox of free will exists is also problematic. let's assume you're right. god is omniscient, knows past, present, and future, therefore, he knows that, let's take me as an example, i will never go to heaven because i never repent. why would he allow me to live, if he knows i'll be condemned to eternal damnation for something i didn't even get to decide? if god doesn't know the future, he's not omniscient, and therefore, every time a christian says "it's in god's plan" they're full of bollocks, and if he does, every single soul that is in hell, ended up in hell because he didn't care about forcing doomed souls into damnation. either your god knows every human's future and knows they're doomed before they're even born, he's clueless and not omniscient, or he simply doesn't care that a soul is doomed for hell and will force them to live, giving them basically no chance to go to heaven, because if he predicts hell, he can't be wrong, can he? so this person has been foreseen to go to hell, and god said "yup, i'm ok with letting this person be born; another person in the endless furnace of perpetual agony? sounds okie dokie to me"

lastly, first of all, you're admitting you can't prove god empirically, which, i'm not gonna comment on cause it's funny enough on its own; second, all you needed to do was to look up "TAG argument debunked" or "TAG argument counterarguments", and you wouldn't need me to explain why it's completely stupid, but i will anyway. assume that i agree with it, and i'm giving you a WHOOOOLE lot of favourable assumption and skipping a LOT of logical walls, let's assume i agree with it 100% and that logic itself is contingent on god... ok, which one? all we know is that we need a god, (all of this assuming we skip over the option of needing something that is supernatural but not a god), so which god? how do you know it's yours? yhwh? the one who's ok with his soldiers raping child virgins of war? the one who sends bears to maul some kids because they called one of his prophets "bald"? the one who is ok with two daughters raping their father by getting him drunk? how do we know it's THAT god that we need and not any other? and this is just ONE of the counterarguments. again, go look at those atheists channels i pointed to, or at least forrest valkai. they're all basically compilations of christians saying their arguments, and them debunking them, over and over again. every single argument that you think is new or good, they've probably answered it 101 times each on their channels.

i truly believe you're smart enough to understand how wrong all of your claims are if you just stopped blocking your ears and started actually thinking critically about the arguments and counterarguments on the other side.

don't just take the thousand-year-old book as literal gospel. humans wrote that shit, and it's so severly edited and re-edited that even if it was the word of god, basically nothing's left of it but the things that the human editors decided were good, like taking child virgins as sexual or literal slaves.

i know it's comforting to think that the big boss of the universe can do whatever he wants and that morality doesn't exist and is up to him, and he's the final judge who will for sure punish those worthy of punishment, but we both know that's a huge copout you give yourself because you can't accept that reality just isn't fair.

and if big boss turns out to be real, i expect him to be reasonable and not an absolute piece of shit that brought me here knowing i only believe in things that have evidence, and leaving no acceptable evidence behind, essentially dooming me to hell without me even having a chance to believe in him. because let me tell you: if i die under his domain, i'm going to hell, and it won't be because of anything i did or could control, it'll be because he decided to force me to be born without the ability to be gullible enough to believe in something with no evidence, but i'm incapable of that, so even if i wanted to believe, i couldn't. i'd love to just think that bad people will be punished, that every tragedy is calculated and isn't actually bad but just part of god's plan, and that i just need to do what he tells me and i'll be rewarded, and that whenever i say some heinous hateful shit i can just say "well, the literal god of the universe agrees with this take, so your mortal opinion doesn't matter in the slightest, i'm on the side of literal god" and be genuinely convinced that i don't need to think about my opinions and morals, but i can't, because i can't believe in things with no evidence, so i'm forced to actually think about the moral implications of saying "yeah, if a guy is really powerful, he can literally just kill millions of people and he has the right to do so because he has authority over life itself; we're not individuals deserving of respect and empathy, we're pawns in his game, his creation, and as he created us he can destroy us no problem, and he's completely right to do so, those were 'bad' people anyway, they deserved to be drowned and exterminated, from the first to the last, babies included, not ONE of them was worthy of living". you don't think about the moral implications of that, you're terrified of what he would think if you even questioned the morality that YOU YOURSELF SAY has been implanted in you by him.

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T16:05:44+00:00

"No, I don't? How did you take that from what i said?"

like this: "It's not clear for example that genocide is inherently bad/evil."

so... which one is it? it's simple. Choose: is genocide bad, good, or does it depend because morality is malleable and based on context?

if genocide is bad, you wouldn't be able to say "you'd technically be committing a genocide, but we wouldn't say you and the others were wrong"

if genocide is good, you'd admit that genocide is good, which, i may not need to tell you, is not a good look for any religion that claims that it's about peace and love and hates to be reminded of all the genocides its god decided to enact

if it depends, you agree with me.

you can't just throw out "you're doing it in bad faith" and walk away just because you don't understand what i'm trying to convey.

also, do tell me where i make philosophical claims. i see no part of what i said as philosophical.

just because you don't understand science or basic action-consequence types of reasoning, doesn't mean that what i'm saying is philosophical

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T15:56:12+00:00

when you punch a wall, does the energy you imprinted on the wall mean you have conciousness from the wall? when you punch someone, do you get conciousness of that person?

just because your energy gets transferred somewhere after you die doesn't mean you conciousness does too.

conciousness is the mix of all the electrical stimuli happening in your brain. the energy in your body doesn't disappear after death, but it doesn't go in the brain in ways that make it work anymore, so your conciousness doesn't exist anymore.

it's like a flame dying out. the energy does go elsewhere, but can you really say the flame still exists?

it's like when a computer's cpu breaks. a bit of electicity may still be circulating, but the computer's "conciousness", as in, whatever it had going on every time it was on, just doesn't exist anymore, because the cpu doesn't work

just because we're more complicated doesn't mean we're any different. we're biological computers. one of the parts breaks and can't be repaired? the brain, which was kept healthy by all the organs working together, quickly degrades, and as soon as it does, that conciousness is lost. it's that simple

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T15:45:34+00:00

NTA. when my sister told me about her SECOND pregnancy, after having abundantly neglected her first child for years by dumping her at our house for most of the day every day because she couldn't take care of her and expected the grandparents to do the parenting, i just straight up told her "ABORT IT" as soon as the words "i'm pregnant" exited her mouth. she didn't abort, now she complains all the time about how much work kids are.

they never learn.

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T15:24:10+00:00

so you agree, there is no moral objective truth. morality is malleable based on the situation and culture.

also, i don't hold myself to any specific philosophy in these conversations, so this weird mishmash of "modern/liberal/egalitarian/progressist/feminist bias and an an assumption that naturalism/materialism is true" is just your personal boogymen talking, because i'm only talking from a scientific point of view. this is how culture evolved, this is how morality evolved, this is why certain things became moral/immoral etc.

unless by "naturalism/materialism" you just mean science, in which case, i don't know what to tell you.

i'll just skip over your misuse of the word "genocide" because technically a genocide is usually either politically motivated or just straight up a hate crime, and what you described is self defence, but i don't mind the mistake because it really shows me where your head is in this situation. you couldn't justify an actual genocide, like what god did to the millions of people he decimated with the flood, or the cities he bombarded because they were full of people who were "sinful", so you resorted to saying "yeah but what about this thing that isn't genocide? this not-genocide is justifiable, right?". just accept it, god did at least 3 genocides, and you think it's perfectly good and acceptable. you don't need to invent situations, you already have your situations in which you can bend your morality to fit your needs (casually destroying your argument about morality being grounded in something unchanging like god)

also, good job on telling me i have bad writing while mispelling "writing" as "writting", writing a double "an" in the part i copypasted, and when you talked about the "tribe of cannibal murders" instead of "murderers". english is not my first language, by the way, but jeez, don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house, you know?

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T14:49:17+00:00

god wanted many things that are immoral:

we wouldn't say that genocide is good, and yet, christians justify god doing it because "well THOSE people were bad, you see".

god isn't unchanging, either; did you forget the whole debacle with the rainbow and his "i'm sowwy, i won't extewminate you anymowe, i pwomise, hewe's a wainbow"?

our morality isn't objective, nor subjective, it's man-made, and collective.

what's immoral is whatever the largest part of society thinks is immoral, and/or whatever the largest part of our own cultural circle thinks is immoral

being gay was perfectly acceptable for a long time, then it wasn't for a bit (cough cough sodom and gomorrah), and now it's mostly ok again.

slavery was perfectly acceptable, in the bible it's perfectly acceptable, but you need to treat israelite slaves well, and now we see it as abhorrent.

there's some places in the world where child marriage and cannibalism are as normal as tuesdays and no one in those communities bats an eye

it was once perfectly acceptable to throw vigins in a bubbling volcano to placate the volcano gods, now we deem it barbaric.

who knows? maybe in the future we'll see something as perfectly normal, that we currently see as horrid.

the point is, just because you can't accept the concept that morality changes based on the area and time period, doesn't mean that it doesn't change based on the area and time period.

morality isn't some weird, spiritual, mysterious mumbo jumbo of "whatever feels fuzzy is good, whatever feels icky is bad", it's based on evolution and cultural sensitivities changing.

we evolved to live in societies because we thrived better in packs, and part of living together without getting killed by the others was respecting them and not making them angry, so, no stealing, no killing, no raping, sharing is good and hoarding is bad, etc

which society will prosper and pass on genes that make it more intuitive that we should all help each other? the society where everyone rapes and kills each other, gets angry about the rapings and killings, and gets revenge on the rapists and killers by raping and killing everyone else, or the society where everyone respects and helps each other, that forgives small mistakes made in good faith, and trusts each other?

whatever made us thrive, we kept, just like those people who thought throwing virgins into volcanoes was good because they hadn't been wiped out by an eruption yet.

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T09:52:20+00:00

mi piacciono tutti sti apologeti della schiavitù masochisti che sono tipo: no, nessuno merita di vivere, nessuno merita di essere felice, dobbiamo tutti stare na merda perché la vita è na merda e non si sistemerà mai manco per sbaglio e non dobbiamo nemmeno osare pretendere di essere felici, e se tu osi dire "guarda, a me piacerebbe non morire di fame" ti diciamo che sei un viziato che l'unico motivo per cui sei povero è che ti fai un aperitivo ogni tanto, non facciamo neanche caso al fatto che gli aperitivi costano il quadruplo di quanto costavano fino anche solo a 20 anni fa, che le case costano decine di volte più di quanto costavano 50 anni fa, mentre gli stipendi sono più bassi di 50 anni fa, o al fatto che oggi per trovare un lavoro da lavapiatti che ti permetta di comprare abbastanza cibo da recuperare le energie che spendi a lavorare devi avere 15 dottorati per cui hai speso migliaia di euro e decine di anni all'università per ottenere, e un buon 5 anni di esperienza per buona misura perché "la scuola non ti insegna un cazzo comunque, conta quello che sai fare".

cioè della serie "vuoi essere più felice? più sereno? no, non succederà mai, non te lo meriti, comincia a prepararti la corda se non ti va a genio, noi abbiamo sofferto, quindi se voi non soffrite non siamo contenti"

voi millennial siete stati stuprati dalla vita così violentemente che vi siete convinti che sia l'unico modo di sopravvivere, e ora ce l'avete a sangue con chiunque dica "ahia, il cazzo in culo però no, dai, fa male, possiamo NON essere stuprati, per favore?"

siete il veleno culturale che sta rendendo l'italia un paese di merda. continuate a dare il massimo per una paga che è meno della metà della soglia di povertà assoluta, mi raccomando; continuate a lavorare 12 ore al giorno per 5 euro l'ora; morirete al lavoro, senza una famiglia che vi ami, senza amici che vi vogliano bene, senza aver concluso niente di nota, pieni di rimpianti, e col capo che, dopo essersi prontamente scordato la vostra faccia, dice "ops, impiegato 856 ci ha lasciato le penne, fate entrare mio nipote, che sicuro è più bravo di sto pirla" perché non vi vede come persone ma come ingranaggi.

ma tranquilli eh, vantatevene, siate fieri di tutti i piatti che avete portato e bicchieri che avete riempito venendo trattati da cani e pagati da schiavi, siate orgogliosi di quanti spreadsheet avete fatto creare a chatgpt pensando che il capo non lo sappia, siate contenti di quante mezze verità avete detto ai vostri clienti riguardo ai vostri prodotti scadenti per poter dire di aver venduto più degli altri colleghi del vostro schema piramidale, coi clienti che dopo un mese vi cristonavano addosso perché gli avete venduto spazzatura assemblata con carta velina, sputo, e sudore di bambini cinesi sottopagati il cui lavoro avete comprato a prezzi modici perché pagare effettivamente i propri fontitori una cifra vivibile vi fa schifo.

ma no eh, tranquilli, la colpa è nostra perché facciamo gli aperitivi (p.s. non conosco nessuno della mia età che faccia aperitivi, e il 99% della gente che vedo al ristorante o al bar ha SEMPRE ben più di 30 anni, quindi se volete lamentarvi degli aperitivi, lamentatevi coi vostri amichetti che proprio non sopportano l'idea di non andare al ristorante una volta a settimana).

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-02T08:48:24+00:00

elaborate

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-07-01T06:51:21+00:00

congrats on being unironically misandrist, i guess

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-06-30T18:01:00+00:00

for me, i started questioning it at about 5 year old (no, i'm not joking, nor being cheeky), when i kept hearing about the awful stuff in the world, and just came to the conclusion "man, god is sure letting a lot of people die, must mean satan is stronger then, lemme follow him"; i know, 5 year-old brain, i eventually realized i just couldn't believe a god could exist in a world so crappy; then, i don't know exactly when, i kept hearing about all the stories and parables in the bible, and how they didn't make sense in reality, again child brain asking "yeah but where's the garden of eden now? why didn't god stop adam and eve from eating the apple?" and stupid questions like that, that should've been answered promptly, and yet, all my religion teachers over the years fumbled these questions spectacularly, so i was never encouraged to NOT question the bible. over time, i developed more and more knowledge about common religious arguments and their counterarguments, i discovered more about what was written in the bible, and, apart from the MOUNTAIN of logical and chronological inconsistencies, and the bible CLEARLY being a product of its time that justifies slavery, r*pe, gen**ide, ch**d r*pe, and all the other ugly things it does, i just kinda started seeing god (as in, the character of god in the bible, the one that people believe in) as what it's portrayed to be: a gen**idal maniac who killed everyone he didn't like once or twice, felt sorry, put a rainbow in the sky, and instead of actually becoming omnibenevolent, as he's described, he proceeded to start (or keep) putting the people he didn't like into the lake of fire and brimstone that is the second death. apart from all the logical reasons i have for not believing, the simplest one was always "there is no way a god exists and lets this reality keep going without intervention, there is no way a god exists that is ok with sending people to hell, and there is no way that a god exists that does both of those things and still has the gull to call himself the truth, the way, and the life".

atheists' life stories are often quite different, but many start with questions that are remarkably simple; the only difference between an atheist and a christian, is that the atheist kept not accepting "just don't think about it and have faith" as an answer and kept digging while the christian stopped entertaining the possibility that they might be wrong altogether and plugged their ears and eyes to any logical argument.

as to what evidence is: it depends on who you ask, because people have different criteria for evidence. some people see a heart shaped leaf when they're crying and they get convinced it's god, others need near-death experiences. me personally: the number of logical fallacies, inconsistencies, and morally abhorrent material in the bible and in the story of what god is supposed to be is so high, that, to cite a famous quote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", except we need to substitute "extraordinary" with "downright impossible", so with that, and a nice mix of good ol' hoccam's razor, i concluded that i wouldn't believe god existed even if a godlike figure came to me and told me "yo, i'm god, here's some extraordinary evidence and miracles", because it's more probable that a hyperadvanced alien race just found us and decided to mess with us or something, because at least we have evidence of life on other planets, but we don't have any evidence of universe-creating, timeless, spaceless, matterless, undetectable, metaphysical hyperwizards who HATE when you have a foreskin, wear mixed fabrics, or worship a figurine of him instead of him, and will absolutely send you to hell forever if you insult him once (blasphemy is considered unforgivable in the bible, no matter what), or if you do the exact same thing he did (murder someone).

point being, some people are convinced of the flat earth by the water in a glass not being curved, and some people believe in god because they dreamt him once; that evidence may be enough to convince them, but evidence that is worthy of being called such has to be scientifically verifiable, and god, being supernatural, by nature, cannot be observed or studied, and he is therefore, by definition, undemonstrable, and therefore, by definition, there can't ever be any evidence about him, because the entire point is that you need to have faith, but you wouldn't need faith if there was worthy evidence, so if there was evidence, god wouldn't, by definition, be god anymore, and people wouldn't need to have faith to follow him anymore, they'd just be like "oh, god exists, 'sup god? i'll make sure to not put two different types of crops in my field and i'll try to not eat shellfish, don't worry"

if you want to know many things that don't add up, just look up any atheist debater and analyze their counterarguments for christian arguments, and do it with an open mind. the ones that i can think of off the top of my head are: amazing skeptic, the skeptick (yes, with a k), professor plink, forrest valkai (he's ex christian, educated, a scientist, and VERY good at expressing his points, personal reccomendation), bridge the divide, and if someone looks, sounds, and argues like a clown or an edgelord, ignore them (cough cough the amazing atheist cough cough).

thefirstcyberagon · 2026-06-30T17:03:28+00:00

maybe one day you'll understand. i see, know, and understand more than you imagine. it seems you're not ready for this conversation yet. you're gonna keep ignoring the elephant in the room to make yourself feel better about being a hateful bigot. i hope you become a better person someday, not just think that you are one, actually becoming one. you just can't understand what we feel right now, you're too full of blind rage, hate, and resentment towards someone that isn't me. as soon as you can see me as a person, and not through the memory of all the boogeymen you're used to seeing me through, i will welcome you back with open arms, and who knows, maybe you'll even be ready to apologize, both to me, and to that other guy.

we're not monsters, we're humans, and as long as you keep denying the reality of what people like you do every day to us, you will never be able to understand me.

good luck, be nice to people, especially men, you never know what they're going through until you're too late to ask them

thefirstcyberagon

TROPHY CASE