Right. I always forget how its always easier to accuse someone of trolling when you have no rebuttal. Carry on, then.
Right. I always forget how its always easier to accuse someone of trolling when you have no rebuttal. Carry on, then.
Didn't look like trolling to me. Why don't you answer, Bane? He's being reasonable.
ugh, really? I'm the bad guy because he didn't read anything I said? Go back and actually read the thread. You'll see exactly what I'm saying is hypocritical, because I've said it multiple times. None of my posts have anything to do with theconversation.one side chastising the other side about basing their opinions on something as crucial as a matter of civil rights as "gut feelings" and "words that have always meant X thing"
I really hate the guy that comes into a thread to make no argument other than "stop making your argument"
I want to say y'all be trollin, but I suppose it IS possible you just haven't read anything further in than page 25. I have to go run some errands, when I get back I might go through and quote myself all at once. Although, then I'd need to copy/paste people I've quoted earlier, and it's all going to be a big hassle. It's easier for you guys to just go back and read the whole thread. Not even really the whole thread, just go back to page 23 and actually read. Don't skim, read.
just please don't quote anything milkster says. My eyes gloss over whenever he posts
Bane, its so much easier for you to:
A) Accuse everyone that doesn't share your view of trolling
B) Run back to the same "READ THE THREAD~!" excuse again and again, despite knowing that most of us have at least 1-2 posts ON EACH PAGE IN THE THREAD, often-times with quotes from others on the exact same page.
I'll ask you one more time: how is it hypocritical when All I hear is one side chastising the other side about basing their opinions on something as crucial as a matter of civil rights as "gut feelings" and "words that have always meant X thing"?
Its a serious question, and if you cannot answer it, then you have no legs to stand on in this discussion. Not that you ever did anyway, as soon as you started playing the "poor persecuted me!" card.
To be fair, I think it was Lenus(?) that was talking about gut feelings and whatever. In response to Lenus and others I shared my opinion on religion and the negative effect it has on believers and why I think it is dangerous. I likened it to a disease. Bane was offended. I understand why he was offended, but furthermore I don't care that he was offended. Religion needs to stop being this protected taboo that you don't talk about or criticize because "its people heart felt beliefs." Politics has always been open for discussion, but of course peoples politics aren't a topic claimed by anyone to be holy. I personally am offended every time some christian person tries to tell me I'm fucked up and all I have to do to have a perfect happy life is accept Jesus into my heart as my personal saviour. The irrationality of religious beliefs from a scientific or even philosophical standpoint is mind blowing to me, there is literally no way to make it all fit together and make any sense without creating a ton of loopholes, excuses, and copouts.
In short I am simultaneously defending Bane's right to be offended by my offensive to religion posts, and at the same time basically saying I think all people who believe in silly shit are silly and dangerous, and their very belief system and the things required of it offend me as a human being.
Right. That whole shit about feelings and whatever was some other guy. Not me. I did talk about my beliefs much much earlier in the thread, but that ran its course.
And I actually have no objections to Siat's opinion- after all, he's entitled to it. However, what I DO object to is the hypocrisy of someone making a hateful generalization about a group for making hateful generalizations about a group. And, I don't think religion should be untouchable, merely that when you talk about it, you should do so in a mature, respectful way- much like any other subject of weight.
I keep saying read the thread because that question doesn't even apply to me, and the fact that you think it does implies that you didn't read the thread.
Bane I'm going to ask you one simple little question. I wan't your honest opinion. You ready?
How would you feel if Obama was Muslim and was trying to impose his religious beliefs on you? I'm speaking mostly about Sharia Law.
And you guys wonder why I suspect you of being trolls? Did I not just establish that I'm not talking about whether religion is right or wrong, and I'm not talking about whatshisface's icky feelings about gays?
ALL I'm saying is that it is hypocritical for someone to make a hateful generalization about a group for making hateful generalizations about a group. Seriously, that's it. It boggles my mind how this can be such a difficult concept to grasp.
Of course I'd be upset. I never said religion had any place in legislation.
Edit: Uploaded an avatar finally, so hopefully people will stop confusing me with whatshisface.
My issues with religion go far beyond it being a force that imposes its values on others, which of course is a claim that has a shitload of historical precedence to support it. Also I want to clarify I don't hate religious people, just the religion. Sort of how christians claim to not hate gay people, just the gayness. Fair enough right?
I think what a lot of people are hating is religion, not the concept of gods. basically, religion is like a stone: unchanging, unyeilding, and oppresively heavy. What people want is more of a living religion, one that flows, adapts, and grows better with time. If gods are these supreme beings that watch over life, then why isn't religion a doctrine that embraces change and growth?
This is why I don't like religions... but i DO like spirituality. People who ponder the meanings of life, who ponder their own values and their relationship to their gods, who actually THINK what their actions entail, both to themselves and others... that is something i personally value.
I don't care what gods you believe in, so long as you aren't taking their word at face value. not even a god wants an unthinking follower. there's no point in it. they left those words for you to meditate over, ponder what they truly meant, what the "spirit" of their verses were, not the literal meaning.
What people hate is a contingent identity of religion.
That might be some people but it certainly isn't me.
I wake up every day with great pride in the realization that the universe isn't out there seperate from me doing its own thing, but that I am a living and breathing aspect of it. Reality is amazing enough, I see no need to start making shit up to try and spice it up or make it seem more magical. In other words I think spirituality, or any beliefs based off superstition really, are silly and demeaning to humanity.