You have an ant problem.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Drawde:
snip

Want to know an awesome irony? "A wizard did it" is actually the most relatively logical explanation you can get when it comes to the beginning of the universe.

I'm probably not being clear enough, so I'll elaborate: The OP's parents seem to be trying to debase his logic, and the OP seems to be trying to disprove his parents. Neither of these things is going to happen. You cannot disprove logic with religion, and vice versa. What we know as God[1] is the explanation for the beginning of the universe, and ONLY the beginning of the universe. Most reasonable religious people have the view "a wizard did it" because, indeed, a wizard did do it. But that's the only thing we can really even be remotely sure that the wizard did. There are so many

Fuck me, I'm branching out again. Ok, short and simple.

Reasonable religious people realize that other people have different viewpoints. They may not think they're as valid, but they know they exist, and other people have different experiences. when the OP's parents start ATTACKING him because of his views, they fall under my category of "unreasonable" people. Simple stuff here, you can't reason with the unreasonable.

If they were wanting to know why so they could understand, that would be one thing. But when people start trying to change your religion because they see it as wrong...? I'm sorry. Unreasonable.

[1] Trying... SO hard... not to branch out...

Look any believer in the eye and ask how drowning a lot of innocent babies is justified. You won't get an answer that will satisfy. You get a lot of "we cannot hope to understand gods ways, and "they where evil" mixed in with a lot of bad morality.

In short, they have no way of defending this from a moral stand point. Which isn't surprising when you consider that it was a local flood that got WAY out of proportions as primitive superstitious people kept re telling it adding stuff as they went along. Such is it with big fat lies.

"We don't know" i.e "A wizard did it." And I would read Hawking's books if I could, but I'm not in a position to right now.

Drawde:

I'm sorry, but you can. There is no way the idea of a homophobic God seems probable enough to believe in using logic.

Most Muslims don't believe 'there is chance that Allah caused the Big Bang'. Religion is way and way and way more than only that idea.

...what? I'm not sure what you're saying here. What I'M trying to say is that you cannot disprove religion with logic because religion is illogical. the essence of religion is saying "I believe". when religion starts spouting shit off as fact, THEN you can debate it and/or laugh in their face, depending on how ridiculous the claim. But when a religious person says that an invisible man is living in the sky, the best thing you can do is shrug and say "okie-dokie then."

Katatori-kun:
"How can I poke holes in everything my loved ones believe in?"

Poke holes? This is the Bible and scripture we're talking about, right? OP doesn't need to poke any holes. The Bible comes thoroughly pre-poked.

Anyway, isn't it a little condescending to think that the religious should have their right to ignorance protected? Like you said, it's fluff and mythology.

Drawde:

You're right. I won't criticize anyone who holds the idea that an illogical god could exist.

But the whole idea of religion is that you know, that you believe, that you are certain that this illogical god exists. And that idea can be proven wrong very, very easily.

Well, I wish you luck proving it to them, then. I think if it was so easy, it would have been done already, and by much smarter men than anyone on the Escapist.

I'd debate more, but it's getting extremely late in my place, so I'll bid you goodnight. Another day, sir.

Batou667:

Katatori-kun:
"How can I poke holes in everything my loved ones believe in?"

Poke holes? This is the Bible and scripture we're talking about, right? OP doesn't need to poke any holes. The Bible comes thoroughly pre-poked.

Anyway, isn't it a little condescending to think that the religious should have their right to ignorance protected? Like you said, it's fluff and mythology.

It's not so much their right to protected ignorance as it is the fact that they're doing such a damn good job in protecting it in their own right by way of denial and stonewalling. It's remarkably effective.

Batou667:
Poke holes? This is the Bible and scripture we're talking about, right? OP doesn't need to poke any holes. The Bible comes thoroughly pre-poked.

"The Bible comes thoroughly pre-poked"

Good grief. That cracked me up... Yes it does. To unsettle the balance of the faithful mind, you only need to ask the right questions, or to a theist, the wrong ones, and you are apparently tearing down families and destroying the society. Stupidity and ignorance must be protected to ensure ignorant bliss. This seem to be the point hiding under the apologetic argument.

Drawde:

Katatori-kun:

Nope. It definitely sounds like he's taking part in the mutual antagonism. Otherwise, the question would be, "How can I get my parents to accept me being atheist?" Not, "How can I poke holes in everything my loved ones believe in?"

Are you Japanese?

No.

I've just been taught that Japanese communication is based on emotion and is focused on keeping everything in harmony, while Western communication is based on rationality and logic.

Then you've been taught a shallow stereotype that both cultures falsely propagate in order to feel good about themselves.

Your arguments really sound like 'how dare he use logic to discuss religion, he should only focus on keeping the family in harmony!'.

*cultural imperialism*

Then you've not read or understood my arguments at all if that's what you think they sound like.

I have absolutely no qualms with how the OP comes to their decision about their beliefs. Logic, emotion, whatever, it doesn't matter. What matters is not being a dick. So he is welcome to believe whatever he wants, and coming here for advice about how to get his family off his back is something I encourage. But to come here and ask for advice about how to defeat his family's religion, that tells me there's a bit of dickishness going around.

And this is a frequent problem I see coming from atheists on this board. Many, many times I have seen atheists profess that they are "oppressed" by religious people who want them to believe in a religion, but then when the tables are turned they cannot bear to show the same respect to religious people they demand religious people show them. Again and again, we see atheists her expressing indignation that people believe things that the atheist finds unacceptable, and asking for advice about how to defeat those beliefs in others.

That's why I say the OP is "in it to win it". He doesn't care about protecting his beliefs. He's trying to defeat his family's beliefs. And that is an endeavor that is never going to come out well for anyone involved.

Batou667:
Anyway, isn't it a little condescending to think that the religious should have their right to ignorance protected? Like you said, it's fluff and mythology.

Now you've crossed a line. Believing in a religion is not ignorance. Personally attacking the vast majority of the world's population is not proper behavior.

I used the words "fluff" and "mythology" with very specific meanings. "Fluff" is meant in the gaming term sense: back-story that gives the game context. Stories like Noah's Ark and such are very much like gaming fluff- they are not essential to actually engaging with the religion (in fact, on this board if anything they seem to be a distraction from the real meat of the religious experience). Their only purpose is to provide a context for the doctrine to emerge from.

"Mythology" is meant in much the same way as we might use the word "parable". It is a story, presented in a linguistic form that portrays the story as true on a superficial level, but on a deep level it simply doesn't matter if the story is true or not. The purpose of the myth is not to make a truth-claim but to illustrate a point metaphorically.

Belief in a religion does not require belief in any fluff of mythology. However, a religious person believing in fluff or mythology does not make them ignorant. My whole point in this thread is that having different beliefs from someone does not require you to attack the person who believes differently from you. And if you want to call everyone who believes in a religion ignorant, that's something I'd really like you to think about.

Katatori-kun:

And this is a frequent problem I see coming from atheists on this board. Many, many times I have seen atheists profess that they are "oppressed" by religious people who want them to believe in a religion, but then when the tables are turned they cannot bear to show the same respect to religious people they demand religious people show them. Again and again, we see atheists her expressing indignation that people believe things that the atheist finds unacceptable, and asking for advice about how to defeat those beliefs in others.

That's why I say the OP is "in it to win it". He doesn't care about protecting his beliefs. He's trying to defeat his family's beliefs. And that is an endeavor that is never going to come out well for anyone involved.

If his parents respected his position in the first place, we wouldn't have this thread.

evilneko:

Katatori-kun:

And this is a frequent problem I see coming from atheists on this board. Many, many times I have seen atheists profess that they are "oppressed" by religious people who want them to believe in a religion, but then when the tables are turned they cannot bear to show the same respect to religious people they demand religious people show them. Again and again, we see atheists her expressing indignation that people believe things that the atheist finds unacceptable, and asking for advice about how to defeat those beliefs in others.

That's why I say the OP is "in it to win it". He doesn't care about protecting his beliefs. He's trying to defeat his family's beliefs. And that is an endeavor that is never going to come out well for anyone involved.

If his parents respected his position in the first place, we wouldn't have this thread.

We also wouldn't have a thread if a giant meteor had crashed into the Earth last week. That doesn't mean that not getting hit by a meteor has anything to do with this.

I find the thought process that appears to be behind your post very childish (being clear here, I'm not calling you childish) and indicative of the superficiality of not just this argument, but atheism vs. religion(s) arguments in general. "They did something that hurt someone on my side, therefore the person on my side has every right to hurt their side." It's an argument about politics, not the logical foundation of a philosophy.

There are any number of reasons a religious parent might push their child to be religious. It might be out of a genuine fear for the child's soul. It might be out of a misguided fear that without the moderating power of religion, the child will become immoral. It might be out of an inappropriate fear that the child rejecting the parents' religion equates to the child rejecting the parents. Or it may even be that the parent is simply angry that they are being defied.

Now, I'm not saying any of these are valid reasons for parents to force their religion on their children. But we should at least have the decency to acknowledge that absent extensive knowledge about the particular family in question, 3 of those 4 reasons above are motivated by love for the child, however misguided they may be.

Face it: parents make mistakes sometimes. And about the age where children begin choosing their own way in life (for example, choosing a different/non-religion) is when a lot of these mistakes happen because parents have to learn to transition from being solely responsible for their child to trusting the child to take responsibility for themselves. It's almost impossible for parents to get this transition perfectly right- some parents are going to be too lenient and let their children get into trouble the children can't handle, some are going to be too strict an prevent the child from getting the experience they need to flourish.

So the correct way to deal with this conflict is to be mature about it. The child should show that they can handle their own decisions responsibly. Choosing their own path while respecting the parents' choices is a very good way of doing this. Selfishly attacking the parents' religion (or even worse, going to random strangers on the Internet to request their help in selfishly attacking the parents' religion) is a mark of deep immaturity, of being unready to truly take responsibility for one's own decisions, because it shows that the child cannot separate getting to make their own choice from scoring some kind of emotional victory over their loved ones.

The Gentleman:

crudus:
I am confused as to what you really want. Do you want us to answer that final question in your post(there isn't one, happy?)? Do you want us to give you ideas on how to convert your father(you can't, happy?)? Or do you want us to give you ideas on how to make them stop bothering you?

I think he's trying to draw a comparison to God's, shall we say, more genocidal tendencies in the Old Testament and a human application of the same principles.

As for me, I can't say I'm totally against the "burn it all" approach. Every once and a while, the thought enters my mind that the human race could use a good 90-95% wipe out event. Then I remember that it is easier to harness the power of stupid people than to try to kill them all.
[/semi-sarcasm]

Or gods just negligent tendencies in this era.

OT: Meh, I choose option A because I'm a dick, On the topic of your parents just ignore them, arguing with someone who is either an atheist or a theist is at best pointless and at worst a down right dumb thing to do.

Neither are going to change what they believe so just let both groups be.

Katatori-kun:
Selfishly attacking the parents' religion (or even worse, going to random strangers on the Internet to request their help in selfishly attacking the parents' religion) is a mark of deep immaturity, of being unready to truly take responsibility for one's own decisions, because it shows that the child cannot separate getting to make their own choice from scoring some kind of emotional victory over their loved ones.

You keep assuming things about the OP. BTW, in my first post in this thread I suggested just outright ignoring the parents. Of course, I don't know how severe the problem is, or how just dismissing the parent would go over.

So maybe I should just suggest he play along and pretend and keep his atheism to himself--but that's not really fair, now is it? (That being said I myself do it with certain members of my family, but I don't have to live with them, either)

Ideally he should stand up to his parents and let them know that nothing they do will change his lack of belief and demand that they respect that. Explain to them how deeply hurtful and disrespectful they are being towards him.

Based on what he's said about his parents though, I doubt that would work very well, since they're obviously not moved by reason. In which case, poking holes in their holey holy book won't work either. Thus, ignore the fuck out of 'em.

evilneko:
Ideally he should stand up to his parents and let them know that nothing they do will change his lack of belief and demand that they respect that. Explain to them how deeply hurtful and disrespectful they are being towards him.

Indeed, that is exactly what he should do. But that's not what he wants to do. He said as much in the OP. He wants to attack. This is childish behavior.

Katatori-kun:
Now you've crossed a line. Believing in a religion is not ignorance. Personally attacking the vast majority of the world's population is not proper behavior.

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you feel the need to protect the religious majority from the insensitive attitudes of the atheist minority? It's condescending. Either we agree that religious people are fully-formed, intelligent and reasonable adults who have a robust religious worldview that they're willing and able to evaluate and defend - or we're going to treat religious people like children who believe in Santa Claus and who need protecting from the nasty, spiteful big kids who would like nothing more than to ruin their innocent make-believe. So, which is it?

I'd also love to know how I could possibly hope to personally insult over 6 billion people with one remark.

I used the words "fluff" and "mythology" with very specific meanings. [...] Belief in a religion does not require belief in any fluff of mythology.

Yes, I get that. Many religious people are non-literalist. At its heart, religion tackles questions that science can't (yet/ever) answer, we all know this because we have a thread on this topic about once every other month.

However, a religious person believing in fluff or mythology does not make them ignorant. My whole point in this thread is that having different beliefs from someone does not require you to attack the person who believes differently from you. And if you want to call everyone who believes in a religion ignorant, that's something I'd really like you to think about.

If somebody told me they believed, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that they believed in the 7-day Genesis, that Noah squeezed every species of animal on the planet's surface onto a wooden boat, that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead - I'd think they were ignorant. Because that's the definition of the word ignorant; deliberately ignoring pertinent evidence. I have yet to hear a good argument for the insane concessions we give to religious delusion, when we wouldn't hesitate to publicly discredit the patently incorrect work of a scientific charlatan, mathematical fraud or medical quack. The only reason I can see for giving any legitimacy to the elements of religious scripture or sentiment that are clearly either harmful, regressive or just plain bullshit, are the facts that religion is widespread and widely accepted in society. But then again, slavery was once widespread and accepted. That's something I'd like YOU to think about.

Katatori-kun:
[But that's not what he wants to do. He said as much in the OP. He wants to attack. This is childish behavior.

Actually, in the OP he said "My parents won't leave me alone about me being an atheist", any childishness you read into the situation is purely your own projection or assumption.

I know analogies aren't always correct, but let's replay the gist of this with a few words changed:

OP:
My parents won't leave me alone over the fact I'm gay. I asked my father why homosexuals have been persecuted for their sexuality. He told me death was better than living in sin"

Pseudotori-kun:
Gee, why don't you grow up! Your parents should respect you being gay but you need to respect their homophobia. You're not even attempting to compromise, you're attacking their deeply-held beliefs, probably out of misguided rebellion. Stop being so childish!"

TheDarkEricDraven:

Not G. Ivingname:
NUKE THE ANTS!!! ERADICATE THEM! EXTERMINATE!

OH GODS I FORGOT ABOUT THE RADIATION I FORGOT ABOUT THE RADIATION AHHHHH! The only way to protect myself is to nuke MYSELF! I will be given extreme powers with which to combat the ant hordes!

OF COURSE! THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Not G. Ivingname:

OF COURSE! THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

*clears throat* That was a gamma bomb, not nuclear. *geek superiority*

Batou667:
Actually, in the OP he said "My parents won't leave me alone about me being an atheist", any childishness you read into the situation is purely your own projection or assumption.

Right. And then he followed that sentence with a request for ammunition to use against people who believe in a religion. You might quote the whole OP the next time, rather than making up absurd analogies that have nothing to do with reality.

Batou667:
Why do you feel the need to protect the religious majority from the insensitive attitudes of the atheist minority?

Don't confuse me asking people not to be dicks with rushing to anyone's defense.

At its heart, religion tackles questions that science can't (yet/ever) answer,

Actually, I disagree with this claim as well. Religion needn't tackle any questions at all.

I have yet to hear a good argument for the insane concessions we give to religious delusion, when we wouldn't hesitate to publicly discredit the patently incorrect work of a scientific charlatan, mathematical fraud or medical quack. The only reason I can see for giving any legitimacy to the elements of religious scripture or sentiment that are clearly either harmful, regressive or just plain bullshit, are the facts that religion is widespread and widely accepted in society. But then again, slavery was once widespread and accepted. That's something I'd like YOU to think about.

Heh, and you don't see how you could possibly be insulting?

Batou667:
I have yet to hear a good argument for the insane concessions we give to religious delusion, when we wouldn't hesitate to publicly discredit the patently incorrect work of a scientific charlatan, mathematical fraud or medical quack. The only reason I can see for giving any legitimacy to the elements of religious scripture or sentiment that are clearly either harmful, regressive or just plain bullshit, are the facts that religion is widespread and widely accepted in society. But then again, slavery was once widespread and accepted. That's something I'd like YOU to think about.

How can you say something is clearly wrong, when so many people fervently believe in it? Who gets to define what is deluded and what isn't? Anyone who doesn't get to do so has a very good reason for this issue not to come up.

Ok, I'd probably tend to agree with you. Most religious people would probably tend to agree with you, at least regarding other people's religions. "All viewpoints are equally valid" has "except X, Y and Z, they are just wrong" tacked on somewhere.

But the issue can only be resolved in two ways. Either it becomes evident what the truth of everything is (at least to the vast majority), or the believers of one group destroy all others. Best to let the issue lie.

Katatori-kun:

Don't confuse me asking people not to be dicks with rushing to anyone's defense.

You still haven't explained why religion should be immune from being challenged.

We're allowed to have passionate, even heated, discussion and disagreement about political ideals; you're allowed to insult the sporting prowess of my national football team and vice versa; world leaders and monarchs attract criticism every minute of every day, a lot of it from their own countrymen. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers are forever at eachother's throats, vegans are scornful of normal people (ha), liberals and conservatives sling insults at eachother and challenge the deep, heartfelt beliefs of their opponents without batting an eyelid. In short, nobody is immune from having their beliefs challenged or even insulted.

Except for religion. Because that's somehow different, and we shouldn't poke at it too much, or cast too critical a light on it, because that's hurtful and insulting and offensive and can't we all just stop being dicks, guys?

You don't see the hypocrisy here?

TheDarkEricDraven:

Not G. Ivingname:

OF COURSE! THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

*clears throat* That was a gamma bomb, not nuclear. *geek superiority*

That will totally work! If one previously mortal man gains so much power, ONLY GOOD CAN COME FROM IT!

Batou667:

Katatori-kun:

Don't confuse me asking people not to be dicks with rushing to anyone's defense.

You still haven't explained why religion should be immune from being challenged.

I never claimed religion should be immune from being challenged. You're putting words in my mouth to make a more convenient argument for you to defeat.

We're allowed to have passionate, even heated, discussion and disagreement about political ideals; ... world leaders and monarchs attract criticism every minute of every day, a lot of it from their own countrymen. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers are forever at eachother's throats, vegans are scornful of normal people (ha), liberals and conservatives sling insults at eachother and challenge the deep, heartfelt beliefs of their opponents without batting an eyelid. In short, nobody is immune from having their beliefs challenged or even insulted.

The difference is all of these things are policy related. They are attempts to control what other people do.

I have always said that when a religious person tries to push their religion on others, that the burden of justifying the religion is on the proselytizer. But that does not mean the listener needs to go on the attack.

Now I can already sense someone hovering over their keyboards getting ready to announce that the parents are pushing their religion as though I didn't know that. The fact that they are family introduces a new dynamic- a dynamic that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with family. People who are not dicks do not attack the beliefs of their family. Full stop. My father went through his birther phase. When he tried convince me that Obama wasn't really American, I felt no problem with saying, "prove it." But if I were to needle him about that, if I were to go on the offensive and attack his beliefs, if I was to go on the Internet and ask a bunch of strangers to help me attack his beliefs, even if I know them to be wrong that makes me a dick. That would mean I place being right about some trivial shit that doesn't even matter over basic respect for the people who love me.

So it is with this thread. You're trying to construct a narrative that I forbid anyone from criticizing religious beliefs, and that's absolutely untrue. I'm just calling for some basic fucking respect.

thaluikhain:

How can you say something is clearly wrong, when so many people fervently believe in it?

Quite a lot of people used to fervently believe the Earth was the center of the universe. Quite a lot of people used to believe illnesses were caused by demons, deities, or just the outside air in the wee hours of the night. Quite a lot of people believed that animals popped into existence in their current form, that man was made from dust, and there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. Some people still believe all of these things. Despite the number of people who believed these things however, they were all wrong.

evilneko:

thaluikhain:

How can you say something is clearly wrong, when so many people fervently believe in it?

Quite a lot of people used to fervently believe the Earth was the center of the universe. Quite a lot of people used to believe illnesses were caused by demons, deities, or just the outside air in the wee hours of the night. Quite a lot of people believed that animals popped into existence in their current form, that man was made from dust, and there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. Some people still believe all of these things. Despite the number of people who believed these things however, they were all wrong.

Wrong, yes, that isn't my point. They weren't clearly wrong.

thaluikhain:

Wrong, yes, that isn't my point. They weren't clearly wrong.

Not really sure what you mean by that when it is quite clear that geocentrists, germ theory denialists, and creationists were and still are clearly wrong.

It is quite clear now, yes, but at the time it wasn't, or they wouldn't have so many people believe in it.

thaluikhain:
It is quite clear now, yes, but at the time it wasn't, or they wouldn't have so many people believe in it.

That still doesn't mean they were right, which is precisely what you are saying. That many people believe a thing does not make it true.

evilneko:

thaluikhain:
It is quite clear now, yes, but at the time it wasn't, or they wouldn't have so many people believe in it.

That still doesn't mean they were right, which is precisely what you are saying. That many people believe a thing does not make it true.

No, it's nothing to do at all with what I am saying.

Again, it's not about whether they are right or wrong, it's about whether or not the truth was well known.

Batou667:

I'd think they were ignorant. Because that's the definition of the word ignorant; deliberately ignoring pertinent evidence.

No, no. That's not ignorance, that's stupidity and/or denial. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge about a subject. That lack of knowledge isn't necessarily their fault.

Well, if I could - I'd move their entire colony out into more wild terrain, such as the forest. But that of course is completely out of the question sadly, so I'd have to choose B. It pains me having to kill innocent creatures simply because they have chosen my home as their area to try and survive, but I really have no other choice.

Katatori-kun:
I never claimed religion should be immune from being challenged. You're putting words in my mouth to make a more convenient argument for you to defeat.

I don't think I'm strawmanning, because it genuinely does seem that you (and some others, to be fair) do attempt to silence any direct criticism of religion by invoking the well-worn arguments of

1) "What you're saying has the capacity to offend, so you shouldn't say it"

and

2) "The tone of your argument is completely non-concessionary, uncompromising, and hostile. I can't and won't give any legitimacy to such a fundamentalist viewpoint"

The difference is all of these things are policy related. They are attempts to control what other people do.

I sense that on this one we'll need to agree to disagree, because I believe that religion does control what people do (and even think, in some cases). Sure, sure, this isn't the purpose of religion, but then again the purpose of cigarettes isn't to inflict cancer on people.

I'm just calling for some basic fucking respect.

And my point is that I give religion all the respect it deserves: namely, very flipping little. Perhaps a call for civility would be more apt.

Batou667:
1) "What you're saying has the capacity to offend, so you shouldn't say it"

Bullshit. I have never made this argument.

2) "The tone of your argument is completely non-concessionary, uncompromising, and hostile. I can't and won't give any legitimacy to such a fundamentalist viewpoint"

Nor this. If you're going to just start making things up then there is absolutely no point in discussing things with you.

I sense that on this one we'll need to agree to disagree, because I believe that religion does control what people do (and even think, in some cases).

Then you are operating under an incorrect notion of what religion is.

And my point is that I give religion all the respect it deserves: namely, very flipping little. Perhaps a call for civility would be more apt.

Yay, when deceit and strawman arguments fail, you can always fall back on childish insults.

I can agree with preventing pickets and such but banning hate speech goes a bit to far. It's not free speech if you're not free to speak.

Katatori-kun:
-see above-

Alright, Mr. Grumpy, calm down.

I was under the distinct impression that you objected to people giving offense, or being insulting, towards religion and religious people. I could probably trawl the last few months of threads and find supporting quotes of this. But perhaps you'd like to set me straight yourself?

You deny that religion has any bearing whatsoever on the thoughts and actions of its followers, which is quite a remarkable claim as it would mean that religion stands alone as the only form of philosophy, belief system, ideology or school of thought that doesn't inform, inspire and justify the words and deeds of its adherents (even the ones who quite explicitly claim that it does). Over the past few months, you and I have quibbled over why exactly you think this is, and, one or two (obscure, fringe, and conveniently benign) counter-examples notwithstanding, I'm still completely unconvinced. Again, I'm all ears, please do educate me and correct my hideous mischaracterisation of religion.

In summary: I haven't deceived anyone, I haven't made any strawman arguments, and if anybody has been insulted by my mild criticisms they should consider growing a thicker skin before venturing onto the internet.

*shrug*

Batou667:
Alright, Mr. Grumpy, calm down.

Look man, quit wasting my time. I've explained what I think often enough to you and you persist in intentionally mis-characterizing it. I've got better things to do than play with you if you aren't going to be sincere about the conversation, and playing the "I must have gotten you upset" game of trolling is not a good start at it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked