Pisses Me Off.

I really, really don’t like dishonesty.  And I can’t stomach people rationalizing holocaust-like atrocities, but I’ve heard people do this in the name of god more times than I can count.

I just had this conversation with a christian:

Him: “Please explain in which Scripture does God tell us to kill gay men.  You speak of responsibility, yet you show none by clearly misrepresenting what has been spoken.”

Me: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” – Leviticus 20:13

Him: “Yes, it says, “they shall surely be put to death”… it does not say that man is to kill them, but that they are killing themselves in their behavior… “their blood shall be upon them”… upon themselves.  It is the hand of God that determines these things is what was being said.”

To which I replied:

Yes, and hitler wasn’t trying to exterminate the jews, he was trying to exterminate their “sins”.

Putting someone to death means putting them to fucking death.

If the bible said they should be executed you would just tell me executed means something else.  If it said “take a big fucking rock and hit them over the head until they stop moving” you would tell me the rock is a metaphor for something.

This is because your faith has made you a fundamentally dishonest person, at least when it comes to the bible.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Pisses Me Off.

  1. dirtbubble says:

    @agnophilo – I appreciate your taste for debate. I just don’t share it. Go in peace: you win by the force of the complete disarray of your arguments.

  2. Mikke3vArt says:

    the way the bible is written, it has been interpreted 2000 times or more since it was written, a) you can rtust most of whats in there b) it doesnt just say “:put gay men to death” as blunty as you write it now. it has elegant old writting to it. and most writng back then was metaphorical and poetic. all i am saying is that i see where you come from when you read that, but also i understand how that specific blogger could have read it and interpreted it a different way.  its actually kinda a taboo like with colors. i know in my biology class an arguement was brough up that…a color to one person can be seen and interpreted as a totally different color, but since we cannot see through eachother eyes…we will never really know whether we see the same colors or not.

  3. agnophilo says:

    @dirtbubble – Wow, the rare “condescend and walk away pretending you’re right after running out of arguments twice” technique.  You truly are a master debater.  Go master debate on someone else’s blog.@Mikke3vArt – In other words we can never know anything, everything is ambiguous, so I don’t have to deal with the bible instructing me to kill fags.I’m sorry, but it says what it says, and your attempts to rationalize it are just as sickening as someone trying to justify the atrocities of the holocaust or say hitler was some kind of misunderstood hero. You are trying to justify a book that advocates murder.  Where else would you do that, ever?

  4. dirtbubble says:

    @agnophilo – You win, I said. Go bray loudly about it.

  5. agnophilo says:

    @dirtbubble – Yes, winning a debate with you is such an accomplishment.Get over yourself.

  6. agnophilo says:

    Looking back I wasn’t even debating with you, just asking a question.  Way to throw a hissy fit.

  7. Mikke3vArt says:

    “You are trying to justify a book that advocates murder.  Where else would you do that, ever?” i do not believe i said anything about justifying it. all i said was that i can see where people take a less literal sense in reading it, and its close minded to think that it it taken the same way everywhere and by everyone.i myself dont read the bible, nor trust almost anything in it for the sole reason that power hungry men who hated “fags” and homosexuals and women with power wrote it. and to be called sickening…i feel like youre being a little melodramatic about this, since i am completely calm about this debate and am far from justifying killing anyone in the name of their god (s). P.s>oh and if i did come off as justifying the bible’s clear instructions to kill people, i did not mean do to so.

  8. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – Tell me, what is the metaphorical meaning of “they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them”?

  9. dirtbubble says:

    Maybe this is what you’re after. At this point I’m not worried about getting you angry. Besides, I think you really like getting angry. As in, when you say you’re pissed, you’re actually quite thrilled.We can pick up the thread after your first reply to my initial comment, which was:The Christian scriptures are so hopelessly garbled that it is a simple thing to skew interpretations however one likes. Dishonest, perhaps when pointing to a passage that advocates capital punishment for consensual sex acts the Christian will now invoke a more compassionate interpretation based on the message of Jesus, but only because this is the flavor of the day for interpretation. What the Christian does is fail to acknowledge that such words revered as god’s word leaves open the possibility for interpretations to swing back the other way with the political winds. This is why I continually urge Christians to forget about everything except the Gospels (with added grains of salt). It does clear up some of these issues for both believers and non-believers.@dirtbubble – On the contrary, I think people need to know about the old testament so that the day will come when someone says “But we MUST do this, it’s in the bible!” people will laugh them out of the room because they know all the other stuff in the bible we don’t follow.  Holding the new testament or the gospels up as being the whole of god’s law/word just lends credibility to the doctrine of biblical infallibility which is a bad thing.Not sure where we went wrong here, but my word “forget” is a way of saying disregard as useful for daily living or spiritual progress. I will never advocate the suppression of any document. Rather, I mean that Christians cannot properly internalize the message of Jesus as long as they confuse a simple message (the Gospels) with a lot of irrelevant background noise (Old Testament) and ego-driven post-production (Acts, the epistles, Revelations). Even the Gospels themselves have been worked over a few times to keep the teachings in line with later administrations, further obscuring the core of Jesus’ teachings. So yes, I tell Christians none if it is god’s true word and if you want anything valuable from this document, keep your eye on Jesus. And so I replied:@agnophilo – That’s what the grains of salt are for.To which you insisted:@dirtbubble – It’s still counterproductive.  Fundamentalism would be un-tenable and christianity much more secular if the old testament were taught as well – look at how much more secular judaism is than christianity.You suggest my position is counterproductive. Counterproductive to what? Your agenda? Which is… what? To smash fundamentalism by proving to idiots that the Bible advocates murder when that’s precisely what they want to believe? Good luck with that strategy.@dirtbubble – And what is the difference between you disregarding the parts of the bible that are invalid and an atheist disregarding the parts of the philosophy of socrates that are invalid?  If we can tell what bits are good and bad, why follow anything?  Why not just agree or disagree with it?I did get confused here. I misread two sentences, actually. It happens. I guess it’s true I don’t read as carefully when I don’t give a shit. First, I took your questions here as rhetorical when in fact perhaps they are genuine. This is why I had to ask you what your argument really is. Second, I thought you were suggesting Socrates was an atheist and that the records of Socrates are some kind of atheist doctrine – which I find absurd, and that explains the quote I had hoped to part with.Since I have already broken my usual form with all of this carrying on, I see no reason not to continue by answering the questions you asked…The difference between me disregarding parts of the Bible and blah blah blah is that the Bible is only an incidental artifact that conveys Jesus’ transcendental message. If Jesus was actually god then it would be his fault that instead of ushering in a new age of compassion and forgiveness his message was warped into justifications for killing, raping, marginalizing and enslaving people, not to mention poisoning the environment and snuffing out entire populations of living organisms. But since Jesus was not god but rather an incarnation of Buddha, these last 2,000 years have only been the preparatory work necessary for the eventual and inevitable enlightenment of all beings. Yeah, all that mayhem just so we can ascend to the stupa. All of this was transmitted to me by the holy spirit, or tha Great Supermind (who knows which?), while I was stone cold sober – so like back when I was about 16. As the one chosen to convey this prophecy I can assure you it is all 100% true.”If we can tell what bits are good and bad, why follow anything?” I can’t see where I recommended following, so I can only clarify that I do not advocate following anything. Your enlightenment, like the enlightenment of a rock or a criminal or the corpse of a baby bird, is unavoidable. Follow or don’t follow anything, to your liking – you will still transcend.I’m not sure your third question isn’t rhetorical, but we’ll put that aside. This question “Why not just agree or disagree with it?” asks me to consider a hot or cold, black or white, agree or disagree world. But I live in a world that really only has one color refracted by abstract thought systems into countless perceptions. It’s only “agree” corrupted by the unmindful mind. I’m not sure what your slant is here based on the questions you posit directly prior, but from my perspective it is elementary that doctrines, philosophical writings, manifestos, scriptures, creeds, etc. are all corrupt by the very nature of the medium of abstract symbolism through which they are conveyed: language. Our futile addiction to language is precisely why contemplation is required to arrive at true understanding.Next you accuse me of condescending. I have noticed that you never fail to condescend, so perhaps it is your own sense of shame that compels you to accuse. This happens a lot with people who use condescension and sarcasm as their primary weapons – they suspect everyone else of the same, like thieves always worried who is after their money. As for me, three comments per thread is my usual limit unless relentlessly goaded or otherwise encouraged. I can’t help but come across as condescending, but that’s just one of the many drawbacks to being prophet. But still it hurts a little.As far as debate is concerned, it seems like maybe you misread me this time. I wrote : “I appreciate your taste for debate. I just don’t share it.” I never cared for debate for a number of reasons. First of all, I have a direct line to the actual truth so all these words tend to bore me after a while. I also realize that some of you folks especially addicted to debate come from a glorious high school debate experience. In high school debate you have rules against very powerful techniques such as ad hominem attacks that can deflate an opponent instantly. When you’re out here debating in a free-for-all, you complain when your opponent breaks those rules and then you turn around and break those rules right back and then it’s just a pissing war. So really, I have no interest in an extended thread of increasingly hostile retorts. It hurts my feelings, again. My skin is paper thin, I’m very sensitive and you just might make me cry or shut me up – which is good for neither one of us if I happen to be correct. Which I am.As for my second parting shot, god can’t take responsibility for that. I was originally trying to bow out with some measure of decorum. I do think your arguments are in disarray, and you have managed to confuse me a great deal, plus you hurt my feelings. So I caved and wrote that. I hope you will let it slide this time.

  10. Mikke3vArt says:

    @agnophilo – whatever a person perceives it as.  you and i, we see it as “kill those sinners” other people might see God as merciful and like that blogger posted, could mean death of the spirit,being forsaken , future denial into heaven when they pass. its like looking at a cloud. to some people, its bunny, a dragon, sun-blocker, a rain-bringer, and to some just a stupid cloud. i am not saying i agree with the person because yes i believe the bible says to kill people. and i think you keep missing my point, that regardless of what you may think, others will have their opinions, unchangeable and just as stubborn as yours. i am just suggesting to you the idea of non-persecution and immediate attack (for lack of a batter term) towards those who have taken a different view on the subject matter.and you must also remember, back then, sinning was REALLY sinning, theyd kill someone for the smallest of treason(s), not even against god(s) but against those stationed above them in the caste system. times are different now and people do perceive things along with the times.

  11. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – Back then there were no alternatives.  There wasn’t an infrastructure to house millions of prisoners and would you feed them while good honest people were starving?  There was no forensics or criminology, it was almost impossible to prove someone committed a crime, so the suspect was eliminated for the good of the whole.  It’s not good, but it is understandable – and very, very outdated.  Following passages in scripture like that as if they were written yesterday is, to use the bible’s own words, following the oldness of the letter instead of the newness of the spirit – the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. And while yes it is conceivable that the passage could mean something else, it is also conceivable hitler could’ve been a misunderstood genius.  But I find people trying to justify such views rather than simply admitting his actions were wrong just as repugnant, and for the same reasons.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @dirtbubble – ..Maybe this is what you’re after. At this point I’m not worried about getting you angry. Besides, I think you really like getting angry. As in, when you say you’re pissed, you’re actually quite thrilled.You’ve got me pegged.  When I care about something and go to the effort to communicate it to people nothing thrills me more than talking to brick wall after brick wall and being disregarded out of hand, usually with insults.  It’s like porn, I jerk off to it.”Not sure where we went wrong here, but my word “forget” is a way of saying disregard as useful for daily living or spiritual progress. I will never advocate the suppression of any document. Rather, I mean that Christians cannot properly internalize the message of Jesus as long as they confuse a simple message (the Gospels) with a lot of irrelevant background noise (Old Testament) and ego-driven post-production (Acts, the epistles, Revelations). Even the Gospels themselves have been worked over a few times to keep the teachings in line with later administrations, further obscuring the core of Jesus’ teachings. So yes, I tell Christians none if it is god’s true word and if you want anything valuable from this document, keep your eye on Jesus.” And what I’m saying is that christians being insulated from the demented parts of the bible is the only thing propping up the notion of biblical inerrancy which is a huge part of why christianity is so fascistic.  Because if, after all, the bible contains no errors and is the definition of right and wrong perfectly laid out in simple black and white terms, why not enforce it on everyone else in society?  Take the concept of biblical inerrancy away and debunk the notion of hell and the toxic combination of christianity and nationalism will fade to the background for the first time in twenty centuries.”You suggest my position is counterproductive. Counterproductive to what? Your agenda? Which is… what? To smash fundamentalism by proving to idiots that the Bible advocates murder when that’s precisely what they want to believe? Good luck with that strategy.”I assume you meant to say precisely what they don’t want to believe.  And my “agenda” is to live in a world where everyone, christians included, have ample mobility of thought, intellectual freedom and the social freedom to live their lives unmolested by any religion imposing arbitrary ethics on everyone else.  A society where peoples’ potential is unrestrained by fear-based, ethnocentric thinking.”I did get confused here. I misread two sentences, actually. It happens. I guess it’s true I don’t read as carefully when I don’t give a shit. First, I took your questions here as rhetorical when in fact perhaps they are genuine. This is why I had to ask you what your argument really is. Second, I thought you were suggesting Socrates was an atheist and that the records of Socrates are some kind of atheist doctrine – which I find absurd, and that explains the quote I had hoped to part with.”Socrates was not an atheist if I’m not mistaken, and my questions were questions.  And what I was saying is that there seems to me no need to follow any doctrine based on authority or the idea that it is a unique source of moral or spiritual or other truth when we can distinguish truth from falsehood and have to do so within those frameworks.  In other words if we have to distinguish between the true and false parts of a religious doctrine the doctrine is essentially just a philosophy to be treated no different than that of socrates or hitler or anyone else – it is to be examined for any worthwhile content and the rest disregarded.  When I said that I thought you were christian.”Since I have already broken my usual form with all of this carrying on, I see no reason not to continue by answering the questions you asked…  The difference between me disregarding parts of the Bible and blah blah blah is that the Bible is only an incidental artifact that conveys Jesus’ transcendental message. If Jesus was actually god then it would be his fault that instead of ushering in a new age of compassion and forgiveness his message was warped into justifications for killing, raping, marginalizing and enslaving people, not to mention poisoning the environment and snuffing out entire populations of living organisms. But since Jesus was not god but rather an incarnation of Buddha, these last 2,000 years have only been the preparatory work necessary for the eventual and inevitable enlightenment of all beings. Yeah, all that mayhem just so we can ascend to the stupa. All of this was transmitted to me by the holy spirit, or tha Great Supermind (who knows which?), while I was stone cold sober – so like back when I was about 16. As the one chosen to convey this prophecy I can assure you it is all 100% true.”And you established this is the case how exactly?  How would you distinguish the difference between a supernatural agency giving you an idea and an idea bubbling up from your unconscious mind into your conscious mind?  If you take a look at all of the ideas people have believed were given to them by a divine source, there is little consistency or reliability in such things.  If by the great supermind or holy spirit you mean something akin to the tao or the deep mysterious intelligence at the heart of the universe, it is an unconscious intelligence which produces not just good concepts but bad ones as well, in a sort of yin and yang.  The same processes that produced your mind produced hitler’s mind.  That an idea occurred to you does not make it true, which is why we must subject our ideas to debate, discussion, scientific testing (if possible) etc in order to distinguish fact from fiction, separate the wheat from the chaff or whatever metaphor you like.  Buddhist philosophy talks about necessary opposites invoking each other into existence, like needing light to have a concept of darkness and visa versa.  In that same way we need bullshit and nonsense to contrast with wisdom and truth – there is no reason to assume from the getgo that an idea in your head is correct, it must be weighed against facts, evidence and other ideas.  If this uncertainty frightens or disturbs you, you are not enlightened.  Focus on the pursuit of truth more and less on the ego.  Which is not to say you can’t feed your ego now and then, enjoy life – but it should not be the central preoccupation.  Declaring yourself a prophet seems unreasonable and self-important to me.  I do not say this to be hurtful, I only say it because I would want someone to give me their opinion were our positions reversed.  Take the advise or leave it.””If we can tell what bits are good and bad, why follow anything?” I can’t see where I recommended following, so I can only clarify that I do not advocate following anything. Your enlightenment, like the enlightenment of a rock or a criminal or the corpse of a baby bird, is unavoidable. Follow or don’t follow anything, to your liking – you will still transcend.”A rock and a corpse are enlightened, they have no conscious burden to be relieved.  Which is not to say death is to be sought, though for some it is.”I’m not sure your third question isn’t rhetorical, but we’ll put that aside. This question “Why not just agree or disagree with it?” asks me to consider a hot or cold, black or white, agree or disagree world. But I live in a world that really only has one color refracted by abstract thought systems into countless perceptions. It’s only “agree” corrupted by the unmindful mind. I’m not sure what your slant is here based on the questions you posit directly prior, but from my perspective it is elementary that doctrines, philosophical writings, manifestos, scriptures, creeds, etc. are all corrupt by the very nature of the medium of abstract symbolism through which they are conveyed: language. Our futile addiction to language is precisely why contemplation is required to arrive at true understanding.”Okay.  So I can’t even have an opinion because my mind is so flawed, but you can declare absolute truth and cosmic knowledge with total certainty?  What, are you of a different species I don’t know about or something?”Next you accuse me of condescending. I have noticed that you never fail to condescend, so perhaps it is your own sense of shame that compels you to accuse.” Yeah well there’s no accounting for your imagination, but no I do not always condescend to people.  I tend to condescend to people when they behave dickishly, as you seemed to, and I never condescend in lieu of reasoned arguments.”This happens a lot with people who use condescension and sarcasm as their primary weapons – they suspect everyone else of the same, like thieves always worried who is after their money. As for me, three comments per thread is my usual limit unless relentlessly goaded or otherwise encouraged. I can’t help but come across as condescending, but that’s just one of the many drawbacks to being prophet. But still it hurts a little.”Declaring yourself a prophet and me your inferior is the very definition of condescending.  And I do not insult people as a debate tactic, I insult them when they act poorly because they annoy me.  I doubt if you read my blog for a year you could find an instance of me leveling an insult instead of giving a counter-point, which is where the fallacy lies.  Insulting someone is rude, but it is only a fallacy when it is done to give the false impression that they are wrong without addressing their position.  Saying “you’re being a prick… and here’s why your position is wrong…” is not a fallacy in my opinion.”As far as debate is concerned, it seems like maybe you misread me this time. I wrote : “I appreciate your taste for debate. I just don’t share it.” I never cared for debate for a number of reasons. First of all, I have a direct line to the actual truth so all these words tend to bore me after a while.” You sound like every fundamentalist christian I’ve ever known.  What you describe is closed reasoning, nothing more.  It’s a closed mind glorified as being superior to widening one’s horizons which is a slippery slope.  Sorry us mere mortals bore your highness.  You should get together with the pope, he supposedly is on a higher, more discerning spiritual plane as well.  Apparently his direct source to The Truth tells him to cover up for and enable child rapists on a massive scale.  I’m sure my words would bore him too.Insular thinking is not healthy.”I also realize that some of you folks especially addicted to debate come from a glorious high school debate experience. In high school debate you have rules against very powerful techniques such as ad hominem attacks that can deflate an opponent instantly. When you’re out here debating in a free-for-all, you complain when your opponent breaks those rules and then you turn around and break those rules right back and then it’s just a pissing war. So really, I have no interest in an extended thread of increasingly hostile retorts. It hurts my feelings, again. My skin is paper thin, I’m very sensitive and you just might make me cry or shut me up – which is good for neither one of us if I happen to be correct. Which I am.”I was perfectly civil with you until you were condescending and dismissive, at which point all bets are off and you’ve no right to complain about anyone being un-civil.  I’ve also been completely civil in this response, though you may not like what I have to say.”As for my second parting shot, god can’t take responsibility for that. I was originally trying to bow out with some measure of decorum. I do think your arguments are in disarray, and you have managed to confuse me a great deal, plus you hurt my feelings. So I caved and wrote that. I hope you will let it slide this time.”So ask for clarification.  I was not attempting to hurt your feelings, and if just asking what the difference between A and B is hurts your feelings, I suspect almost anything I said would hurt your feelings in some way.  I have no idea why what I said would be offensive.  And yes, I will let it slide.  I don’t tend to hold grudges.

  13. Mikke3vArt says:

    @agnophilo – i keep wondering if you are talking about me justifying anything or the other blogger. if him, then well sorry that sucks for you. if referring to me, i dont know what you think i am trying to justify, and i think you are twisting my words and putting me on the other side of the argument. i agree with you about what the bible says, but i can not be upset or repulsed by any other opinion if it makes sense to me, and most of the time i except peoples opinions as what they are. opinionsand yes, back then it was nessicary to kill, but because of the new times where we can just lock all the bad people up, those who follow the Book, dont have to always resort to that despite what some may think. they can now take the scripture in a less literal sense to come to terms with the present day law and society. not only that, but there are a lot of moral good in the bible as well, it might not be as noticeable, but there is. and last (sorry for all my babbling) i dont understand why you decided to be repulsed with someone who was trying to preach the Book as peaceful, trying to see it as only peaceful and maybe still somewhat wrong and prejudice is present, if they do not take it as violent towards others…why would you be mad at that? wouldnt you rather have people, who still have faith, to believe in a peaceful (on earth), God, then have someone preach that god wants us to kill all the homosexuals and adulterers and sinners? even if i didnt believe in something close to god, i would prefer that. 

  14. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – I was referring to the other blogger, I thought that was clear – sorry for the misunderstanding.  That he doesn’t want to kill gays is not what I find repugnant, it is that he is trying to promote a book that does say that and rationalize away something incredibly evil.  As I said, if someone tried to argue that hitler was a misunderstood genius and championed the weak and such, would you not find it repugnant?  These scriptures are soaked in the blood of just as many millions.

  15. Mikke3vArt says:

    @agnophilo – science gives the how to kill things, people put it to practice.and it wasnt clear, thats why i was so repetitive before because i didnt think you were getting my point. and i cannot hate him because he promotes the bible, because hes trying to do so peacefully. but i have been the target of religion attacks on individuals and i was very young when it happened, so i understand how it is also upsetting. its probably because im a Libra, i have to see both sides of everything, but i do agree with you that if someone were promoting a book with sane knowledge that it teaches violence against others, it can be hard to like them as a person. 

  16. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – “science gives the how to kill things, people put it to practice.”It’s worth mentioning the difference between pure and applied science.  Though it’s not exactly hard to kill people if one wants to.”and it wasnt clear, thats why i was so repetitive before because i didnt think you were getting my point. and i cannot hate him because he promotes the bible, because hes trying to do so peacefully.” I wasn’t advocating hatred, it just pissed me off.  Anger and hatred are two different things.”but i have been the target of religion attacks on individuals and i was very young when it happened, so i understand how it is also upsetting.” I’m sorry to hear that.  Do you mean literal violent attacks?”its probably because im a Libra, i have to see both sides of everything, but i do agree with you that if someone were promoting a book with sane knowledge that it teaches violence against others, it can be hard to like them as a person.”I don’t believe in astrology, but thanks for seeing my point of view : )

  17. Mikke3vArt says:

    lol yeah that was a quote my teacher said when someone said science kills people xDwell when i was little, a had a friend who was apostleistic(sp…) and back then i didnt understand the difference between sects of christianity, so i though it was be fun to go to their Family Fun Night at their church. i ended up getting a bad migrane and since they were my only source of transportation, the father of my friend (the pastor) started saying the headache was the devil. they literally sat there calling me the devil, trying to use them, and spit at me. i was in the fourth grade. since then i was terrifyed of any other church than my own. i think astrology is fun 🙂 and you’re welcome.

  18. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – Whoa, that’s really screwed up, I’m sorry you had to go through that.  The closest I’ve come to that kind of crazy was once when I was debating with some “soldier of god wearing our spiritual armor” type fundamentalists on myspace (back when people were on myspace) and there was an entire forum of fundamentalists all agreeing with each other about how illness and atheism are caused by demon posession – I disagreed politely and was of course insta-banned, and one of the members sent me a private message and continued the discussion.  He started telling me all of this “jesus loves you” stuff and then said he was only telling me this “in case you’re human”.The bible actually does say this stuff, but it is born out of ignorance – we know what germs are now. 

  19. Mikke3vArt says:

    @agnophilo – lol right? i mean im sill somewhat religious i believe in souls and god but i mean, im majoring in science so i also have to thinking logically with science as well

  20. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – I’m big on trying to verify my beliefs, either empirically or logically.  I agree with what socrates said, that the only way to know anything is to question everything, and that the unexamined life is not worth living : )But yeah, was raised christian so for a long time even after I stopped believing in the bible I still believed there was a god, and for some reason that it had to be the christian god somehow.  I later realized that if I’d been raised in afghanistan I would have a similar bias toward allah, and if I’d been raised in india then brahma, vishnu and shiva would roll of the tongue as naturally as the father, the son and the holy spirit.  But yeah, in a way the crazy people you met might’ve done you a favor by ensuring you would never become like that – though really how many people do anyway?  Even in iran or someplace it’s hard to think most people even approach that level of fuck-nut crazy.

  21. Mikke3vArt says:

    @agnophilo – theres nothing wrong with having a religion, i think it actually makes some people better. but the reason i take no part in the rituals of christianity any longer is because ive seen a lot more nut, when i try to state my beliefs thank open mindedness.dAnd surprisingly i saw a lot of Athiests and agnostics do the same, but most of the ones i know are far from people like that. i kinda realized people suck at believing in things, and so i just came to terms with the fact that even if it isnt a supreme being that hears my prayers…i am here with people i love, and that must come from something that science cant really explain fully to me, ever. 

  22. agnophilo says:

    @Mikke3vArt – “theres nothing wrong with having a religion,” I don’t think it makes someone a bad person, but it depends what one means by “religion”.  Many elements associated with religion, dogma, peer pressure, fear-based ideologies, suppressing critical inquiry etc are definitely bad.  Strip them away from religion and you have philosophy, which I think is much more useful.”i think it actually makes some people better.” Possibly.  But in my experience it just amplifies what someone brings to the table.  Assholes become more obnoxious, nice people become more compassionate etc.”but the reason i take no part in the rituals of christianity any longer is because ive seen a lot more nut, when i try to state my beliefs thank open mindedness.”Yeah : (  And even saliva.  That story is really messed up, I’m still shocked by it.”And surprisingly i saw a lot of Athiests and agnostics do the same, but most of the ones i know are far from people like that.” There are bad apples everywhere, but atheists tend to be pretty thoughtful people.”i kinda realized people suck at believing in things,” Believing is a waste of time I think – I try to understand, not believe.  As benjamin franklin once said, “the way to see through the eye of faith is to shut the eye of reason.”  Thomas Jefferson said “Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.””and so i just came to terms with the fact that even if it isnt a supreme being that hears my prayers…i am here with people i love, and that must come from something that science cant really explain fully to me, ever. “Well, never say never : P  Science may never have all the answers, but it’s because each answer teaches us to ask new questions.  But science has done a fair job of explaining the world.

  23. Absolom says:

    Of course, the writer is totally fair. link check here. Very effective material, thanks so much for this post. LINK 3 link. Quite useful material, thanks so much for the post. go 5 site. Well, I don’t really suppose this is likely to have effect.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s