Or You'll Do What Exactly??? A Short Rant


When in the past I have lobbied some harsh criticisms against religion, there have always been those whose immediate response is to say, "You better be careful, that's my faith you're talking about."

Be careful... or what?

I have always found that if your first response is to threaten someone for offering what may be a valid criticism or critique, no matter how controversial, with vague implications toward... whatever... then this response only makes me want to knock you off your pedestal of self-righteous privilege even more. 

Be careful I don't hurt your feelings? Grow up.

Seriously. You have no idea how much this self conceited reactionary threatening annoys me. It panders toward an already established level of intolerance and it caters to fear for the sake of shutting up your opposition. 

 I mean... it really, really, really, makes me want to take a sledge hammer to the foundations of everything you believe and rattle your goddamn beliefs so hard that you'd take two fucking seconds to think. Yeah... think. 
Be careful... or what? You'll actually have to think for two seconds?


If I sound angry, I apologize. I'm more annoyed than angry. I get this response at least once every few months, and it bothers me to no end.

*Takes deep breath*

Okay

Rant/Over.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more