Friday, August 12, 2005

Frustration.

I've been having a lengthy and heated debate with Lisa through e-mail.

The basis of it is that her view that homosexuality is wrong is based upon the fact that "god said so". So I asked her if she was a Christian or not, and she refused to answer. I asked her if she believed a number of other things stated as God and Jesus' word in the bible as fact and rules etc. No answer. I asked her to read an article that laid out quite clearly why belief in the CHRISTIAN version of God is simply impossible without being fundamentally irrational and out of touch with reality on the most basic level. Again, she doesn't get it. I explain to her that believing in a higher power, or in "god" as a "prime mover" in the deistic sense is not the same as believing in the Christian God, and that Aristotle and Plato and many other of the greatest minds in history agree with me on this fundamental point. She ignores it. She in one breath says that being gay is wrong because god says so, but then says why should she feel a certain way just because god says something is wrong? why should that affect how she feels or acts? Then why do you feel it's wrong if you don't feel obligated to put credence in it or change the way you feel because of it? OH WAIT, YOU DO.

It's like arguing with a retard. (I'd say I'm sure that comment is going to piss her off, as she pays very close attention to any possible insult I say to her, just not the actual facts I point out to her.) How can you prove your point to someone on a complex issue when they obviously cannot understand the constituent concepts, even when very clearly pointed out to them? When you explain something, and in the next breath they contradict what you just showed to them to be true, as though you never said it... how do you make any progress? How do you explain or prove something to someone who has forcefully closed their mind to the possibility that you might be right, and in the process, ignores all the concepts that are a part of actually understanding?

I do not have the patience for it. I can't help but call things as I see them, and when someone is in fact behaving as though they're stupid, I can't help but tell them so. If you don't want to be called an idiot, QUIT FUCKING BEING ONE AND USE YOUR GOD DAMNED HEAD. QUIT CRYING FOR BEING CALLED OUT FOR THE STUPID FUCKING CRAP YOU BELIEVE ESPECIALLY WHEN SHOW WHY YOU'RE WRONG FOR DOING SO.

Jesus fucking Christ.

yeah, while I'm at it, fuck you God and fuck your alleged son Jesus of Nazareth. Fuck you both. Please strike me down with lightning for blashpeming and taking your names in vain you fucking pathetic figments of the collective Christian imagination.

...

Oh look... nothing happened!

STUPID FUCKING CHRISTIANS. You're prisoners to your own ignorant delusions, and so set on maintaining that fundamentally irrational and stupid and impossible belief system, that you cannot comprehend the complexities of reality. You have convinced yourself that something as impossible as "black is white" is true because you need to do so to maintain your fantasy. It doesn't make it true, and it does in fact cognitively cripple you and make you A FUCKING IDIOT.

So go get mad and cry and point at me for calling you names now, instead of actually focusing on WHY I DO SO. On the actual evidence I presented stating the very core of why the very foundation of your religious belief system is IMPOSSIBLE AND WRONG, and hence every belief based on the authority of that WRONG and ERRONEOUS belief are therefore INVALID. MOOT.

GOT IT?

If you don't agree, then please, explain to me how that article is wrong, and how and why the Christian God IS in fact real per what the bible says he is. And we'll see who is the ignorant one here who has to fall back on ignorance and lack of understanding as their excuse for their beliefs.

The United States of Stupid

Considering that almost half of all Americans believe some of the following things...

The Christmas Miracle.
Most Americans believe the virgin birth is literally true, a NEWSWEEK poll finds.

A quick note for those of you that don't know... Mary was not a virgin when she had Jesus, this is a known misinterpretation of the original texts. Also, the immaculate conception does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus, but instead to the miraculous birth of Mary being free from original sin and therefore an untainted vessle to conceive Jesus in so that she would not impart him with original sin, as being the savior, he could not have this sin in him. (all based on particular Catholic dogma and interpretations and outright fabrications etc.) I've touched on this before... but there are different camps on the original sin issue.. the 2 main ones I'm aware of being, on one hand, that original sin is almost like a genetic legacy that we pass on to our children, so that as soon as they are conceived, they bear the taint of that original sin. This is the root of the Catholic concept of the Immaculate conception of Mary... they HAD to fabricate this to account for their version of original sin etc. The other view is that original sin was a kind of disaster that tainted the world in which we live... so that we are suffering from the fallout of that original act, but not necessarily that we ourselves are tainted.

To put it simply, sort of like a river with fish in it. On one hand, the fish are healthy but living in a polluted river which makes them unhealthy. On the other hand the river is clean, but the fish are genetically diseased from birth in spite of the clean river. (And to continue the parallel, that both of these were somehow the result of a conscious choice by the fish... as though we humans, claiming to love the fish, said "ok, you can swim in this river, but never eat this worm.". So the fish eat the worm and are fucked for eternity, but love us as perfect creators and providers in spite of the fact that we created their misery, we presented them with it and afterwards refuse to fix it, and are obviously far from loving and perfect as they think we are.)

*sigh* Enough with that silly analogy.

Most Americans take Bible stories literally.

Now mind you, Lisa is an 18 year old Canadian girl, so obviously some of this mentality stretches north of the border, although thankfully they seem to, on average, have a little more common sense up there. Considering their laws to allow same sex marriage in contrast with our governments overt attempts at a constitutional ban against them.

*sigh*

stu·pid
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
n.
A stupid or foolish person.


It's your own fault that you quite clearly match the definition. Don't cry to me for stating a fact. Instead work to no longer fit the definition.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

4 comments:

chris said...

phreadom, join me on this thought experiment.

Our science is pretty good now and evolution is a sound mechanism that I think is responsible for everthing walking around today, save for the nasty little viruses that we've cooked up ourselves.

The evolution mechanism has taken a finite (difficult to calculate) time to move from start to human beings. But we can guess what the starting materials were.

Say we chucked out those materials into the galaxy and they landed on a planet in a similar state to that in which earth was when those materials were first used to make bacteria or whatever.

Say we did it a few million times, and came back a few hundred million years later. (however long we've calculated this things take). On a few of those worlds what do you think would have happened?

I think that if we'd seeded enough worlds we'd find something we could have a chat with.

When we're sitting down to dinner with our new mates, we ask them if they'd speculated about their own origins. Of course they would have done.

Do you think they would have been able to work out that it was us that kicked things off?

How could they?

How could we?

This is where your "complex issue" becomes simple. Some people have faith is something kicking things off. You attacking dogma and literal interpretation of biblical stories is just lazy. Of course they look silly now - as your article mentions (after so much really very dull text) those original texts have been under the influence of Clarke's 3rd Law. And I guess its corollory is that if you have a very low level of technology, you don't have to imagine much to come up with "magic".

There are themes and ideas behind the literal interpretations that are still relevant. Ideas that a lot of people do still take comfort from.

Its these ideas that guide a lot of people's moral compasses. Consequently some things don't need to be written down to feel wrong.

That's not say those feelings are always right.

"blah blah woof woof"

Phreadom said...

You totally missed my point. Generally I agree with you. My point was not in arguing against a "higher power" or a "prime mover" etc. My point was that belief in the Christian God and the bible as any sort of factual account of things, is ludicrous and stupid. Two very different things.

So your thought experiment here is preaching to the choir so to speak.

Also, morals are an arbitrary and in a sense innate creation of man. We have a gut feeling about what's right or wrong based on the society we live in. That doesn't come from religion. These things were around long before religion and are perfectly present in people absolutely devoid of religion. You are mistaken in trying to justify the existance of religion. It holds no value except as a fantasy that makes weak and ignorant people feel good when they can't handle the truth. Either for lack of intelligence, lack of knowledge, lack of sanity or simple weakness.

chris said...


an article that laid out quite clearly why belief in the CHRISTIAN version of God is simply impossible without being fundamentally irrational

STUPID FUCKING CHRISTIANS. You're prisoners to your own ignorant delusions, and so set on maintaining that fundamentally irrational and stupid and impossible belief system...

Phreadom said...

?? Your point?

I don't see where you're saying anything I haven't said, or showing me to somehow be inconsistent in my statements. Please clarify. :-)