• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Are Atheists Mentally Ill?

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,358
#1
Thanks to a couple of surveys, it’s being put about in certain circles that atheists have higher IQs than believers. That may or may not be the case, but one problem with this argument is that, if you accept "average group differences in IQ”, you get into all sorts of sinister debates which bien pensant atheist Lefties might find less to their liking.

So let’s not go down that unhappy road. Let’s dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let’s see who is living more intelligently.

And guess what: it’s the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.

In 2004, scholars at UCLA revealed that college students involved in religious activities are likely to have better mental health. In 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live. In the same year researchers at Duke University in America discovered that religious people have stronger immune systems than the irreligious. They also established that churchgoers have lower blood pressure.

Meanwhile in 2009 a team of Harvard psychologists discovered that believers who checked into hospital with broken hips reported less depression, had shorter hospital stays, and could hobble further when they left hospital – as compared to their similarly crippled but heathen fellow-sufferers.

The list goes on. In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.
What’s more, these benefits are visible even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs. And let’s not forget that religious people are nicer. They certainly give more money to charity than atheists, who are, according to the very latest survey, the meanest of all.

So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)? Or is it the believers, who live longer, happier, healthier, more generous lives, and who have more kids, and who go to their quietus with ritual dignity, expecting to be greeted by a smiling and benevolent God?

Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.

And I mean that literally: the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith: we have, as a species, evolved to believe, which is one crucial reason why believers are happier – religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans.

Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands.
Source (click through to view links embedded in the article)
 

crippli

disturbed
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,649
#2
The whole article is riddled with illogic. How did the writer come from this to that?
Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.
The jumps the writer take make no sense.

Invalid.
 

kvothe27

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
382
#3
It has nothing to do with being an atheist in itself, but rather what activities in which the atheist engages. An atheistic Buddhist, for example, could conceivably become more mentally healthy than the majority of non-atheists.

Religious practices provide a convenient way of ordering the mind so that the believer is more likely to engage in activities beneficial to mental health. However, just because the atheist doesn't order his mind in a similar way ( by this, I mean making use of supernatural concepts or deities), doesn't preclude the atheist from ordering his mind in such a way to achieve similar results.

If atheists are generally more unhappy than theists, it is because many of them have not established or have not become members of some tradition or practice that produces similar results.
 

Foxman49

Subsisting
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
90
Location
I'm around
#5
The whole article is riddled with illogic. How did the writer come from this to that?


The jumps the writer take make no sense.

Invalid.
Yes the author (like most people) overplays his intellectual hand. It happens so often really that I just automatically ignore the overblown parts and take on the actual thesis. If you dismiss an author out of hand by this reason alone you would have a tiny canon of acceptable works that we could consider "valid."

Not sure how I feel about the article though. On one hand I'm religious, on the other hand, I'm as close to a heretic as one can get. Nor do I possess that dynamic religious vitality that is asserted in the quote as beneficial to health. Also dismissing atheism and equating it to insanity is really stupid. (Comments regarding insanity are one the few things that really PISS ME OFF!!). In summary, an interesting distillation of research, however the interpretation should be burned at a stake.
 

ApostateAbe

The past is an asshole, so f*** it
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,189
Location
MT
#7
Interesting article. There are a number of problems with the article (correlation vs. causation, inferring intelligence from religious benefits), but I think he may be essentially right, that religion is good for people. The personality type associated with atheism comes at a cost, and that is social isolation. People who believe things that are starkly different from the majority tend to make it known, and those people tend to be more socially isolated. Social isolation is strongly linked to all manner of psychological and physiological problems. For those who value the truth, the costs may be relatively small, for some especially large. I can guarantee you that a young open atheist born and living in a Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia will almost certainly not live a long happy healthy life.
 

kvothe27

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
382
#8
I think the author is projecting alienated aspects of himself onto atheists. This is evident in his impassioned and demeaning language. You'd think someone mentally healthy, and reflecting religious values conducive to mental health, would be less hateful.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
1,414
#9
The author's evidently strong dislike for atheists is an immediate warning sign, the tone is so vitriolic! (typical of much atheist bashing)

Probably Neo would have been happier (and less prone to mental illness caused by facing the inherent meaningless of existence) if he'd taken the blue pill. That's basically what religion is isn't it? Admittedly it's sometimes unknowingly so, but in these days of easily accessible information you've got to wonder about that.

If the health claims are true they are no doubt caused by the placebo effect of faith.

Admittedly atheists could probably do with more types of community building with a secular focus but not INTPs, obviously!
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,935
#10
I was liking the direction it was taking until:

Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)?
Then it went all nutty, the degree of which makes me doubt he has the rationality to properly evaluate the evidence he cites to support the bit I did like,and the tone of which makes me not want to be bothered looking it up myself.

I actually really like reading criticisms aimed at atheism (sick sad world I know), but when they're so effortlessly dismissed it's almost as if the atheist horde is being inoculated against questioning itself. Maybe that's the theists plan? To remove all selective forces until the atheist movement turns into a simpering puddle of false superiority? :rip:
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#11
Well, the overall purpose of the piece seems to be an in-your-face, "We're not idiots/psychos, you are!" kind of retort, triggered by the recent flurry of articles about how atheists have higher IQs on average than religious people.

So any substantial points in the article are lost in the cheap attack on atheists and leftists and anyone else who doesn't appreciate religion. It shouldn't be considered a serious argument, at least in terms of slant.

It's a british rag, though, isn't it? Don't they have a rep for pointed journalism like this, even moreso than various US media outlets?

EDIT: Really getting sick of news sites hosting blogs and making it unclear what are opinion pieces vs actual news. Yahoo's pretty terrible too -- they stick actual news articles AND speculatory/bloggy commentaries in the same news feeds, as if they should be weighted the same.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
412
#12
In my opinion, the study confirms the idiom that "ignorance is bliss." But, in all honesty, it is entirely misleading and the journalist obviously has a bias against atheists. With that said, the survey can only point to correlation and not causation. Being an atheist is merely a lack in a belief in a deity, but there are many ideas that humans can believe in, namely freedom, justice, human dignity, democracy, etc. Our brains are not hardwired for religion so much as it is wired for abstract thought and social interconnectedness. Religion seems to be the lowest common denominator that fulfills both roles quite nicely, at least from the dawn of civilization up to the modern era.

It is also quite likely that atheism leads to isolation from loved ones and social ostracization in much the same way as being different in many other ways does, such as being gay(example of religious intolerance). A community of atheists could theoretically yield the same beneficial results as religion if their community was large enough to have enough diversity to serve the many needs of the community. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I've read surveys that stated that highly irreligious countries such as Denmark, Finland, etc also have high life expectancies(don't quote me) So it doesn't sound to me that religion itself promotes a happy, fulfilling life. I think having a belief that is common to a community of people help form strong social adhesions that promote well being, but this need not be theism.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
412
#13
Interesting article. There are a number of problems with the article (correlation vs. causation, inferring intelligence from religious benefits), but I think he may be essentially right, that religion is good for people. The personality type associated with atheism comes at a cost, and that is social isolation. People who believe things that are starkly different from the majority tend to make it known, and those people tend to be more socially isolated. Social isolation is strongly linked to all manner of psychological and physiological problems. For those who value the truth, the costs may be relatively small, for some especially large. I can guarantee you that a young open atheist born and living in a Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia will almost certainly not live a long happy healthy life.
I was busy typing my response when you posted, hence missed it. I see we made similar points.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,691
#14
I actually really like reading criticisms aimed at atheism (sick sad world I know), but when they're so effortlessly dismissed it's almost as if the atheist horde is being inoculated against questioning itself. Maybe that's the theists plan? To remove all selective forces until the atheist movement turns into a simpering puddle of false superiority
Yeah that is a concern.

Even if there are real benefits to being religious, or at least a statistical likelihood of benefit for those who live a religious lifestyle that's not going to stop me being an atheist (of sorts), in fact I say "of sorts" because not being religious and being an atheist are two different things, an atheist actively believes god doesn't exist, there's many people out there who accept that they simply don't know, I mean I'm pretty certain the benevolent Christian God is fictional but then again for all I know reality is a computer simulation, make of that what you will.

Anyway so to judge all nonbelievers by those who are explicitly atheists is a bit unfair, but I will accept that I am an atheist and that my lifestyle isn't as healthy as it should be, which I don't attribute to being an atheist, rather it's simply the fact that I have a more liberal lifestyle than my conservative peers, I don't go to church on Sunday, I'm in bed with a hangover, which isn't healthy but I choose to be there, I don't want to go to church on Sunday morning, I want to have fun the night before and sleep in to my heart's content the morning after, god has nothing to do with it.

I think we all need to recognise the true evil here, statistics, atheists as a demographic may be smarter than religious people but that doesn't make me smarter than the next guy, nor does it mean my life will be shorter or more wretched (though it's hard being smarter than everyone), simply that sort of broad range statistical data just doesn't apply to an individual level and the real fools are the people who think it does.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,791
#16
Source (click through to view links embedded in the article)
*bursts out laughing* Oh good grief. Let's start with the obvious: religious people believe in supernatural entities, and atheists are the loonies? And of course religious people are happier; I would be, too, if I thought that I were immortal and could achieve eternal paradise by doing various things. Finally, even if humans 'naturally' have faith, we should need not be so quick to say that they ought to because faith is belief in the absence of evidence, a thought pattern also known as superstition or psychosis. Human superstition happens because our pattern recognition system has been evolutionarily hard-wired to produce false positives rather than false negatives, and we can see it at work in the bizarre rituals of gamblers--tap the machine right there, wear these shoes, etc.--everywhere. A given religion is a vast accumulation of superstitions that survives because its clerics and proselytizers can make people believe its assertions without providing evidence; very often, emotional appeals hide faulty logic, and 'faith' blinds believers to inconsistencies in their texts.

Moreover, the article's measure of 'smart living' included number of children and frequency of giving to charity; why are people necessarily stupid if they don't have huge numbers of kids or give to charity? Having a large family in today's world usually indicates poor or absent birth control, and believers donate in order to receive eternal reward and avoid eternal punishment. And since when do relative health benefits factor into intelligent living? Overall, I don't see much of an argument besides the health benefits, but the subtext reveals something else.

The final argument implicitly defines atheists as a Them and then glorifies a religious We by implying that atheists, as "emotional amputees" do not participate in the rituals of the 'We' and should therefore be pitied as unnatural; the author neglects that everyone is born agnostic. I therefore continue to hold that religion is a massive case of folie a deux.

-Duxwing
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,325
#17
I feel like some false attribution is going on here.

I think whatever psychological benefits/placebo effect are happening are happening because of the peace of mind and security being granted by faith, but faith is not necessarily religious.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#18
the article presupposes that living a healthy happy life is all that is desired (if such were the case then yes, perhaps atheists would be fools), and doesn't weigh these factors against others of much greater importance.

Generally it's quite short sighted and limited in perspective, but the innate benefits and structural disposition towards religiousness is a fact not to be underestimated. There are few things worse than these types of people:

 

kvothe27

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
382
#19
I feel like some false attribution is going on here.

I think whatever psychological benefits/placebo effect are happening are happening because of the peace of mind and security being granted by faith, but faith is not necessarily religious.

It's the practices, such as meditation (prayer), group activities, charity, etc., that can lead to the psychological benefits. The faith part mostly just offers an easy way of ordering the mind to stick with these practices. Think of the incentives of heaven and hell, for example. This means the faith part is nonessential to the psychological benefits. One can employ a nonreligious philosophy or practice to achieve the same psychological benefits.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
67
Location
Virginia
#20
Heroin can make you really happy too. "Opiate of the masses" comes to mind...

"the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness."

lololol... I think that all it proves is that mental illness can produce happiness.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#21
Not only that, we also know that lack of belief in free will, which is likely correlated with Atheism has detrimental effects.

Jason: I like what you did there <3
 

crippli

disturbed
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
1,649
#22
Yes the author (like most people) overplays his intellectual hand.
Indeed. I noticed that too.

It happens so often really that I just automatically ignore the overblown parts and take on the actual thesis. If you dismiss an author out of hand by this reason alone you would have a tiny canon of acceptable works that we could consider "valid."
I only dismissed the article. But I shall admit I tent to skip the rest of an article when I encounter ill-logic. A long life has thought me that it saves time. But may miss valid information on occasion. Please let me know if I made an error in this case. I will make an effort to readjust.

Not sure how I feel about the article though. On one hand I'm religious, on the other hand, I'm as close to a heretic as one can get. Nor do I possess that dynamic religious vitality that is asserted in the quote as beneficial to health. Also dismissing atheism and equating it to insanity is really stupid. (Comments regarding insanity are one the few things that really PISS ME OFF!!). In summary, an interesting distillation of research, however the interpretation should be burned at a stake.
Now. That's an interesting bit of information. Please tell us more about yourself.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#23
Plenty of room to speculate on a group of atheists vs non-atheists. How would one make a double blind test? ... which is not going to be done anyway. One would have to start with a named biased population and then choose people at random, give them a test not telling them what the test was for and then proceed.

Believers? One can speculate believers are more likely to have a supportive social structure. Questioners? That's a different category. Why don't we divide intellectual atheists from those non-believers who are angry at God or angry at organized religion?
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Location
Crap
#24
I'm starting to think the people who bitch about this forum's quality of threads decreasing with time are onto something. I'll take a little whiny, emo bitchiness in exchange for something worth replying to.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#25
people who speak uncomfortable truths tend not to be treated well by society...
This is a good counter imo.

Fukyo said:
I think whatever psychological benefits/placebo effect are happening are happening because of the peace of mind and security being granted by faith, but faith is not necessarily religious.
Don't the statistics that the article brings up make it pretty clear that retaining faith in the absence of religiosity is hard? How would those statistics be there elsewise?

The article is lacking in scope, but you can hardly deny the facts which it brings up and what they imply.
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,935
#27
As for atheism vs. religion on IQ, isn't it just atheism vs Christianity? I'm just parroting some of Abe's posts in another thread, but aren't Jews more intelligent when compared to atheists than atheists are when compared to Christians?
 

ApostateAbe

The past is an asshole, so f*** it
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,189
Location
MT
#28
As for atheism vs. religion on IQ, isn't it just atheism vs Christianity? I'm just parroting some of Abe's posts in another thread, but aren't Jews more intelligent when compared to atheists than atheists are when compared to Christians?
Ashkanazi Jews are the most intelligent genetic race, but that isn't to say they are the most intelligent religious identity. I don't know one way or the other if adhering Jews have a higher IQ than non-Jewish atheists (there is a significant overlap between the Jewish race and atheism).
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,935
#29
Ashkanazi Jews are the most intelligent genetic race, but that isn't to say they are the most intelligent religious identity. I don't know one way or the other if adhering Jews have a higher IQ than non-Jewish atheists (there is a significant overlap between the Jewish race and atheism).
Holy shit I actually have zero clue. I know nothing.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#32
These kind of arguments never go anywhere useful. The measurements the premise is based on are faulty; define "happy" and "better mental health". Slippery, and of course the author dispenses with a definable measurement like IQ.

I'll also pick out one example of the studies that purport to show that believers live longer. Perhaps, but I'll also point out studies that show that believers demand more near death care. Which is ironic, since they're on the way to meet their maker which is their final goal in life. However obviously believers will live longer if they are demanding more care at the end of their life.

Personally I'm far happier since I renounced religion and accepted my disbelief. Taking the Red Pill increases uncertainty, but I prefer that to Blue Pill false uncertainty.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#33
Are thinkers better than feelers because thinkers think they know what is righter more than feelers feel they do? Or are feelers better than thinkers because they know better what to believe than thinkers think they do?

Perhaps this thread needs a new title but I feel I don't think what that would be.:)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#34
Feelers are better than thinkers because they have an easier time viewing their emotions from a third person perspective, and are more comfortable reasoning consciously about their emotions, thus making them less susceptible to irrational emotional affects. This in turn makes them far less susceptible to falling into dogmatic modes of thinking through affect than their counterparts the thinkers.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#35
Feelers are better than thinkers because they have an easier time viewing their emotions from a third person perspective, and are more comfortable reasoning consciously about their emotions, thus making them less susceptible to irrational emotional affects. This in turn makes them far less susceptible to falling into dogmatic modes of thinking through affect than their counterparts the thinkers.
However one could also say, reversing feeling and thinking:

Thinkers are better than feelers because they have an easier time viewing rationality from a third person perspective, and are more comfortable feeling consciously about their thinking, thus making them less susceptible to illogical reasoning affects. This in turn makes them far less susceptible to being carried away by irrational feeling through affect than their counterparts the feelers. <-- or something like that.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#36
Since when is religion concerned with the rational domain though?

Admittedly I'm kinda trolling/arguing for the sake of arguing; trying to defend feelers here.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,791
#37
Since when is religion concerned with the rational domain though?
Boom goes the dynamite! One could see belief in a religion as a set of emotionally driven errors in reasoning that can either be prevented through proper emotional awareness or diligence in logic.

Admittedly I'm kinda trolling/arguing for the sake of arguing; trying to defend feelers here.
Feelers can more safely experience and tinker with emotions than Thinkers can, but Thinkers can more easily and effectively ignore or avoid emotions while reasoning.

-Duxwing
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
949
Location
Upstairs
#38
I am convinced there are three types of atheists (there might be other types or subtypes but this is as far as I've narrowed it down thus far):

1) those filled with maleficence who truly believe in a higher power yet enjoy the evil inherent in convincing others of falsities for falsities sake. Surely this type is intelligent enough to have been cognizant at some point of the irrationality of denying a higher power had any role in forming and perpeting the universe and life as we know it. probably represent ~1-3% of atheists.

2) those who deep down truly believe in a higher power yet for whatever reason (child abuse from a parental unit, disappointment in some religious figure or organization, etc) have become bitter and jaded and find it cathartic to publicly deny the power/ influence of this higher power in the universe. probably represent ~60% of atheists

3) the hopelessly moronic who are always ready to believe whatever the loudest voice is telling them (in this instance the atheists with the loudest mouths). probably represent ~35% of atheists

And generally I think those of type 1 and 3 are wastes of flesh & other humanoid's time trying to convince them of the truths of this higher power. Those of type 1 are sociopaths and yes mentally ill. Those of type 3 are mentally incompetent and were born to follow.

The only type worth bothering to reach out to with an investment of time and effort (rationality and logic + emotional and spiritual healing) are those of type 2. They are merely spiritually and emotionally ill, not mentally ill in most cases.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,028
#40
I am convinced there are three types of atheists

The only type worth bothering to reach out to with an investment of time and effort (rationality and logic + emotional and spiritual healing) are those of type 2. They are merely spiritually and emotionally ill, not mentally ill in most cases.
Atheism vs theism is a false dichotomy and mental illness is a myth perpetuated by social constructs. :storks:
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
949
Location
Upstairs
#44
People disagree with me therefore I'm convinced they're mentally ill.
Post reported for harassment. Message sent to mods:

"I never said anything of the sort. Deliberate assignment of words and sentences I did not submit to the forum. This poster is exhibiting blatant false representation of my being on this forum. This is obvious harassment to me. Please deal with this situation as you see fit."

Such maleficence on your part redbaron, exposes the motivations of your positions. Not elevating of thyself or fellow man/ woman. Severely undermines your positions.
 

redbaron

consummate salt-extraction specialist
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,566
Location
38S 145E
#45
DrGregoryHouse said:
Such maleficence on your part redbaron, exposes the motivations of your positions. Not elevating of thyself or fellow man/ woman. Severely undermines your positions.
Yes! the way you revealed that you've narrowed down all atheists to either: inherently evil, hopelessly moronic or bitter and jaded didn't expose your motivations and severely undermine your position at all!

I'm sure the mods are taking your complaints very seriously.


Edit: for what it's worth I kind of like your presence here: I'm literally in stitches laughing at your naivete.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Location
Crap
#46
for what it's worth I kind of like your presence here: I'm literally in stitches laughing at your naivete.
I'm still not convinced it's naivete so much as entirely purposeful satire/trolling, but his tenacity and dryness make me think you may be correct about it.

Also, D-Gaitsh, I find it difficult to believe you sincerely think all atheists fit into those categories, as opposed to the minority of them. I'm curious which atheists you've interacted with which drew you to this conclusion, as my experience leads to basically the exact opposite conclusion; that atheists are people just like anyone, and they lack belief in a deity because there's no good reason to have such a belief, in the same vein as lacking belief in Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy, etc.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
949
Location
Upstairs
#47
Yes! the way you revealed that you've narrowed down all atheists to either: inherently evil, hopelessly moronic or bitter and jaded didn't expose your motivations and severely undermine your position at all!

I'm sure the mods are taking your complaints very seriously.


Edit: for what it's worth I kind of like your presence here: I'm literally in stitches laughing at your naivete.
So I guess the post I reported won't be deleted, etc.

I find myself pleasantly suprised, even glad. Its wild here on this forum. I like that. The right environment for an INTP. Get your troll on I guess.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,028
#48

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#50
I'm still laughing about Spiderman.

If he wasn't real, I don't know what I'd do. My life would have no meaning.

I find myself pleasantly suprised, even glad. Its wild here on this forum. I like that. The right environment for an INTP. Get your troll on I guess.
INTP forums are traditionally more wild west.

Saddle up, cowboy.
It's all vigilante justice 'round here parts.

(Well, except for that bit of stupidity with Montresor last night.)
 
Top Bottom