Siren2011's religious rant (Little things that annoy you split)

[Siren2011]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but religious people. Overly, passive believers, whatever-- all of them are fucking stupid. The worst part is, when you call them stupid, they think that you're the stupid one, and they will clench onto this delusion like their lives depend on it. Then they insist that you will go to hell for your beliefs. It's like watching a child throw a tantrum because you inform them that Santa is really their dad. It essentially is the same principle. They only believe in a divine entity because reading crap or word of mouth from an unreliable fool has lead their easily impressionable minds down that path of thinking, much like a virus spreads from person to person. JoshF summed it up best when he defined religion as "a collective hallucination". That is exactly what it is. What I don't understand is why do they find it so crucial to believe that Jesus will rise from the dead to judge everyone, among various other retarded hallucinations? It's incredibly serious business to them-- something which I find very weird.

Just to be clear: good and bad things happen to everyone in this world, but to attribute such occurrences as the work of a "higher power" is nonsensical. I have a newfound intolerance for anyone who does believe in such juvenile horse manure. Especially if they have the nerve to call me "the delusional one."

[BulletMagnet]

What I don't understand is why do they find it so crucial to believe that Jesus will rise from the dead to judge everyone, among various other retarded hallucinations? It's incredibly serious business to them-- something which I find very weird.

I don't think it's too hard to understand the appeal of the notion that someone/something out there is, in a nutshell, going to make sure that everyone eventually gets exactly what they deserve...that so long as you do "what you're supposed to" you'll be okay, no matter how many setbacks or injustices you suffer in the meantime. Everyone wishes that was true, right?

I personally don't see its allure (or utter lack of tangible evidence) as very far off from the political/economic principle of the so-called "invisible hand", but that's another ball of wax...

[Siren2011]

Well, yes. Sans pessimists, who doesn't have blind faith that their future will be bright? We obviously know nothing of what the future holds, but we all have to dangle a carrot in front of our eyes to get our butts moving.

So, where is the line of hope/religion drawn? When and if something goes right in his life, --for some stupid reason or another-- the person in question believes that God made it happen, because he loves him. After so many such occurrences he starts to see a pattern in his life, which in turn makes his faith in this non-existent holy being stronger. This makes him believe that going to mass every Sunday will repay that "God", and give him reason to give him more blessings in his life. The hopeful person realizes that some things are left to chance (ex. colliding with someone in the hallway of your college while running to class, who turns out to be the love of your life), and other things we have control over (Getting a 2-All in Ketsui). "God" has nothing to do with it. Of course, religious nuts have their own spin on this that goes, "Do your best and let God do the rest." If we took that saying and changed it to, perhaps, "Do your best and random occurrences will help you along the way", it would make sense.

To expose the religious fallacy even further, let's use Aristotle's model of logic:

Jesus was a human. (True)
Humans are mortal. (True)
Therefore, Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. (Utter horse shit)

and another,

God loves everyone (False, since the word "God" does not point to any particular person, therefore, it is a misuse of language).
Criminals are part of what makes "everyone." (True)
Therefore, God loves criminals. (False)

See? Complete chaos. Yet good luck explaining these things to religious people. You will need it.

I personally don't see its allure (or utter lack of tangible evidence) as very far off from the political/economic principle of the so-called "invisible hand"

Hmm... sounds interesting. I'll have to look into that.

[DragonInstall]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but religious people. Overly, passive believers, whatever-- all of them are fucking stupid. The worst part is, when you call them stupid, they think that you're the stupid one, and they will clench onto this delusion like their lives depend on it.

People like you annoy the hell out of me. Well I guess assholes in general annoy me. I am not religious btw.

[Siren2011]

I may be an asshole, but at least I'm a moderately intelligent one. And that's totally fine by me. It's much more preferable than being a stupid nice guy.

[Blackbird]

They only believe in a divine entity because reading crap or word of mouth from an unreliable fool has lead their easily impressionable minds down that path of thinking, much like a virus spreads from person to person.

I disagree with you on several counts, but I will correct you only on this one. Not everyone fits into the "impressionable" caricature that you describe, simply following the flow of events. I believe in god because I've personally felt a divine influence. It's not something as cheap as "reading crap".

Consider the possibility that some people may have more noble, or perhaps even enlightened reasons for having faith.

[Siren2011]

Consider the possibility that some people may have more noble, or perhaps even enlightened reasons for having faith.

Alright, Blackbird. Judging from your many posts that I've read, you seem to be an informative, polite person. I will consider that possibility, right here, right now.

Enlightened adj. Factually well-informed and guided by rational thought.

So, please provide the reasoning for which your faith is based on. How are you logically connected to The Big Guy Upstairs? For your response to be true, it must be free of superstition.

[Specineff]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand cue the can of worms.

[Ex-Cyber]

So, to sort of tie this into the theme of the thread, something that annoys me about religious debates: the tendency for someone to assume that they have some armor-piercing soundbite argument that the opposing side has never heard before and couldn't possibly refute (PROTIP: the more convinced you are of this, the more likely it is that the opposing side has heard it enough times to be sick of regurgitating a response).

[DragonInstall]

I may be an asshole, but at least I'm a moderately intelligent one. And that's totally fine by me. It's much more preferable than being a stupid nice guy.

How does being an asshole make you more intelligent than someone who isn't? How old are you to have a mentality like that...

I still can't imagine anyone telling someone their stupid for believing in a religion. I seriously hope you don't go out of your way to make statements like that to people.

[Siren2011]

How does being an asshole make you more intelligent than someone who isn't?

DragonInstall, you are really starting to annoy me. I never said being an asshole equals intelligence, nor did I imply it in any way, shape, or form. If that was the case, then Billy Mitchell would be a fucking genius. There are stupid assholes everywhere, just like there are smart blacks and ignorant Jews, homophobic whites etc, etc. Quit making stuff up, admit that you don't have anything to add to the discussion and move on.

I still can't imagine anyone telling someone their stupid for believing in a religion.

Why would you? This self-evident fact is simply beyond your comprehension, even after I've told you. And I think you meant "they're."

I seriously hope you don't go out of your way to make statements like that to people.

I generally hold my tongue if a person whom I like says something retarded in my presence. It's called respect. Petty arguments are not worth destroying a friendship. But random strangers are fair game.

...the tendency for someone to assume that they have some armor-piercing soundbite argument that the opposing side has never heard before and couldn't possibly refute.

Are you seriously implying that it could be otherwise? Seriously? And what in the world is a "soundbite argument"?

[Blackbird]

I think what he means by a "soundbite argument" is something simplistic and easily remembered, but not really meaningful. Um, I'm trying to come up with an example, but to be honest I don't try to remember them because they annoy me too =P.

A lot of what you hear in televised political debates is "soundbite argument", though. Particularly when they start talking about tax cuts, healthcare, or alternative energy, haha.

Regarding religion, I've said my piece on it and I don't want to derail the thread further into an argument.

On topic: Opening my wallet and finding it has no money in it. Time to cash that paycheck -_-.

[Ex-Cyber]

...the tendency for someone to assume that they have some armor-piercing soundbite argument that the opposing side has never heard before and couldn't possibly refute.

Are you seriously implying that it could be otherwise? Seriously?

I'm not sure what you think I might be implying. I think my parenthetical made my intended implication pretty clear, but if not: a person's confidence in the effectiveness of an argument sometimes stems more from the person's ignorance than from any virtue of the argument.

I think what he means by a "soundbite argument" is something simplistic and easily remembered, but not really meaningful. Um, I'm trying to come up with an example, but to be honest I don't try to remember them because they annoy me too =P.

More or less that: a short, simple, easily-remembered argument that is merely repeated (nearly) verbatim with no serious effort to tie it into the current context of the debate or address potential objections. For example: "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics".

[Siren2011]

A person's confidence in the effectiveness of an argument sometimes stems more from the person's ignorance than from any virtue of the argument.

The key word here being "sometimes." Not the case here. If you have reason to believe that my posts were "ignorant" instead of hitting the nail on the head like I clearly did, please state clearly what my mistakes were and why they're incorrect. If you cannot provide such things, then every intelligent poster on Shmups Forum will laugh at you for being a posturing half-wit. If you do, then I learn a valuable lesson and that's that. I have nothing to lose, especially since my argument is 0+0=0, while the opposing side insists that it's actually 0+0=10,000,000.

A soundbite argument is...a short, simple, easily-remembered argument that is merely repeated (nearly) verbatim with no serious effort to tie it into the current context of the debate or address potential objections.

Let's address this first: The ideas contained within my previous posts emerged from my innermost being. Prior to typing them out, I had never used them as tools of arguments before. There was no repeating. I merely improvised based on common sense. I don't feel the need to repeat stale arguments, anyway.

As for the "no effort to tie it into the current context of the debate or address potential objections" bit, how in the hell was my argument "out of context with the debate"? And I did address his point, dummy! Have you been reading this thread on your iPhone while driving intoxicated or something? You've got some serious explaining to do.

Dumb excuse to not respond with a reasonable answer to this post in 3...2...1...

[Ex-Cyber]

Siren2011, I wasn't describing your post. I was describing a general phenomenon that I've seen happen many times in religious (and political) debates. It was prompted by your post only because you broached the topic, not because I thought that your post was an example.

[Siren2011]

I am so sorry. Carry on, then.

[Blackbird]

To be honest, I thought I was the one making a soundbyte argument there, but whatev.

More rage for the fire: Incompetent customer service. I inquired earlier at a website because a "feature" of their website prevented me from ordering anything from them. The customer service representative replied that they could not find my order anywhere in their system. ...-_-.

[Siren2011]

Idiots who equate fame with success. Does this done to death scenario sound familiar?

"Hey, this song sucks cock. Who the fuck is this?"

"Dude, she doesn't suck cock, she's Lady Gaga. And she has legions of fans, so you clearly don't know what you're talking about."

"Your mother should have gotten an abortion."

Possibly even more annoying is the idiot who scoffs at an artist/videogame/movie precisely because they are not popular, regardless of how talented/well made they are.

"Whoa, what in the heck is this!? There are blue circles all over the screen!"

"This is a danmaku Shooter. It's one of the most quality titles this medium has ever known."

"Huh. Is that so? It never made the Top 10 Best Games Ever list on Gamefaqs, and none of my friends have it, so I think I'm going to disagree with you, there."

"..."

(Chokes guy to death.)

[greg]

How's this for something that annoys the hell out of me: intolerant twerps who just assume that if you believe in God that it's only because you're a stupid moron, and they can't resist spewing their hatred on places like video game forums and such. And because they've known idiotic religious people, that gives them every right to be hateful and intolerant of others. That's pretty pathetic. Siren2011, you're just as obnoxious as those intolerant ones who try ramming religion down others' throats. You just do it coming from the opposite direction, but you're guilty of the same nonetheless. Sadly, you're probably incapable of even understanding that concept.

Here's something else that annoys me: I write an e-mail asking two or more questions. I even enumerate the questions for clarity and ease of response. Then the reply I get back only addresses only one of the questions, leading me to believe that they didn't even bother reading the message. I hate that.

Oh yeah, and shaved or waxed, it's still gross.

[Skykid]

How's this for something that annoys the hell out of me: intolerant twerps who just assume that if you believe in God that it's only because you're a stupid moron, and they can't resist spewing their hatred on places like video game forums and such.

People who spew hatred and abuse at folk who hold religious beliefs are morons indeed. People who attempt to debate the validity of religious doctrines, however, are perfectly justified in voicing their opinion, and conversely, what irritates me is when religious folk ignore, sidestep and play down facts they're presented with rather than tackling the argument head on.

[greg]

People who spew hatred and abuse at folk who hold religious beliefs are morons indeed. People who attempt to debate the validity of religious doctrines, however, are perfectly justified in voicing their opinion, and conversely, what irritates me is when religious folk ignore, sidestep and play down facts they're presented with rather than tackling the argument head on.

Yes, but did you even read that guy's posts? "...The word 'God' does not point to any particular person, therefore, it is a misuse of language," etc. His so-called logic was all over the place (throwing around Aristotle's name and inserting logical shortcuts fueled by hatred into the argument still does not make an intelligent case), and to have a fair exchange of ideas about God and whatnot (although I can care less about doing so on a stupid video game forum of all places ) is impossible unless both parties are capable of respecting one another.

In other words, if anyone says they are an atheist, I assume they must have arrived at their conclusion through logic and reasoning, and I can respect that. I never assume that it's because they're a moron. If the other person is obviously incapable of returning the favor, then pursuing an argument would just be a waste of time for everyone. Besides, this thread is just meant for venting frustrations, not to be derailed into an off-topic tangent. It wouldn't be fair to anyone else who reads the thread. Starting a new thread is pointless, since as it has already been pointed out, the guy's an asshole, and trying to argue with somebody like that who is incapable of respecting other people's ideas is one of the worst ways I'd spend my time.

[Skykid]

People who spew hatred and abuse at folk who hold religious beliefs are morons indeed. People who attempt to debate the validity of religious doctrines, however, are perfectly justified in voicing their opinion, and conversely, what irritates me is when religious folk ignore, sidestep and play down facts they're presented with rather than tackling the argument head on.

Yes, but did you even read that guy's posts? "...The word 'God' does not point to any particular person, therefore, it is a misuse of language," etc. His so-called logic was all over the place (throwing around Aristotle's name and inserting logical shortcuts fueled by hatred into the argument still does not make an intelligent case), and to have a fair exchange of ideas about God and whatnot (although I can care less about doing so on a stupid video game forum of all places ) is impossible unless both parties are capable of respecting one another.

In other words, if anyone says they are an atheist, I assume they must have arrived at their conclusion through logic and reasoning, and I can respect that. I never assume that it's because they're a moron. If the other person is obviously incapable of returning the favor, then pursuing an argument would just be a waste of time for everyone. Besides, this thread is just meant for venting frustrations, not to be derailed into an off-topic tangent. It wouldn't be fair to anyone else who reads the thread. Starting a new thread is pointless, since as it has already been pointed out, the guy's an asshole, and trying to argue with somebody like that who is incapable of respecting other people's ideas is one of the worst ways I'd spend my time.

Agreed on all points... except the asshole part, I admit I haven't read the posts. I was getting confused with his above post about folks ragging on shmups.

I'll take a looksee anyway, but you're right in what you say. Mutual respect in any argument worth having is a necessity, and not often found on this forum.

[Siren2011]

I almost refrained from posting, I tried my best to refrain from posting, because I didn't want to stir up any further trouble.

But then greg had the audacity to call me an asshole, thereby eliminating any remaining respect I had for him, so here's the riposte. Enjoy.

That's pretty pathetic. Siren2011

Yeah, instead of attempting to debunk my post point-by-point, you spout off posturing "holier than thou" bullcrap such as this:

You just do it coming from the opposite direction, but you're guilty of the same nonetheless. Sadly, you're probably incapable of even understanding that concept.

to compensate for the blow I dealt to your pride. And that, my friend, is even more pathetic. I do understand it, and it's not hard to figure out at all: I've offended you. I don't really care.

The word 'God' does not point to any particular person, therefore, it is a misuse of language," etc.

If you can't even understand that simple claim, then you deserve to believe in God, quite frankly. Never educate yourself, dude. Just stay ignorant from birth to death. You are right where you need to be.

throwing around Aristotle's name and inserting logical shortcuts

It's funny how everyone has somehow acquired the false notion that whenever someone mentions a philosopher, he must always be name-dropping him for no reason other than to appear like an intellectual. I by no means "threw around his name." His model was a useful tool to prove my main point that religious beliefs of any kind are not rooted in reality, but in superstition. We can only speak of what we know-- of what is logical. The rest is nonsense.

To put it into terms easier for you to swallow, consider this:

-There is a wailing noise coming from that tunnel.
-The monsters I've read about in stories make wailing noises.
-Therefore, there's a monster in the tunnel. Oh noes!

It is this caliber of childishness that some people use to base their beliefs around.

Oh yeah, and shaved or waxed, it's still gross.

Right. So you prefer hairy balls.

Mutual respect in any argument worth having is a necessity, and not often found on this forum.

Hey, I respect Blackbird, even though I disagree with him. But not greg. He was one of the people my argument was aimed toward.

And just because two people who do not share respect for one another get into an argument, that does not mean that there are no winners or losers in that argument. It's always the smarter person who knows he won, and the loser is usually in denial.

[BulletMagnet]

I'm about two seconds away from locking this and recommending admin action: change my mind, and make it quick.

[Siren2011]

You won't get another word out of me, BulletMagnet. I'm done with this discussion.

[Skykid]

I'm about two seconds away from locking this and recommending admin action: change my mind, and make it quick.

Then let me make a quick plea:

I apologise for commenting on stuff on a past page I didn't read, I didn't realise I was replying to an existing debate/debacle. Let's desist completely with the religious discussion, as so far this thread has proven a fairly amusing (and quite unexpected) marathon of annoying shit to get off your chest. Let's keep it that way pls.

If you want to discuss religion, open a new thread.

Peace mofos.

[greg]

You won't get another word out of me, BulletMagnet. I'm done with this discussion.

You were completely right about Lady Gaga, though.