Tuesday, 22 December 2009

non-believer tolerance of believers? TAKE 3 (religiorant)

sometime in the past couple of weeks, someone said something about non-believers tolerating believers, not sure who it was, but it got me thinking, so thank you if these ideas seem familiar... .... sorry this is so long (and this is part three), not sure if the other two parts aren't too over the top (yes, even for me)...

but the opposite argument, "should believers be tolerant of non-believers?" should have been a no contest, right?

After all, those religions of love and peace and happiness and togetherness and TOLERANCE should not even be thinking about *if* they will tolerate non-believers, as they have already, via the proxy of their religion, declared that they will be tolerant. well that's what I keep reading into the hidden meaning when they say that theirs "is a religion of peace" ..

so, the question is

should non-believers be tolerant of believers?

it seems a rather innocuous and simple question... but in terms of the argument against religion, I think this is *the* killer because, let's face it, believers are *not* tolerant of non-believers, and even though that statement doesn't apply to the majority of the religious, the intolerance shown by the mega-religious minority is so prevalent and so outspoken and so often stupid and so offensive that they can't be ignored... why?

stupidity is contagious

stupidity and deferring to what somebody tells you to think caused the frikking dark ages ... not thinking for yourself is dangerous. The bible is a perfect example - nobody asks *WHY* any of the things are the way they are in the bible. Why did Satan attack heaven? Why is it an abomination for this and that? Why did god send Jesus? Why did god punish Job for no particular reason? Why did god wipe out all life on the entire planet? Why did he let the fallen angels breed with humans.. why why why

so my answer off the top of my head in a knee jerk reaction, is to answer the question with

"why should we be tolerant of believers?" ..


but first, let's put the whole argument out there and establish some context so we can see why we shouldn't have to tolerate "believers"...

and i want to establish precedence (who was there first) in this blog because the religionists have often told me that because their religion has been around for so long that it's *the* religion and it's the right one, of course. I've even read people claim that Islam is the oldest religion, because it has it's roots with that Adam and Eve story.


tolerance - in general terms - would at least in part seem to be the task of the person who was there first, in that they have to tolerate their environment changing around them, right? This includes, the weather, some new person showing up, anything that involves changes really...

I mean, you could show up later on, and have to tolerate the people that were there before you, but, do you really have a right to complain? Even if their customs are brutal? Islam is exactly what I mean, if we go to their country we *must* obey their laws and respect their customs, the same should be expected from them when they come to our country, right?

So we have a precedence where the persons being there first have the most right to want to keep things the way they are, because everything was fine until the change happened, or indeed, give permission for a new way of things to happen, if in fact the new guy coming along has a great idea that would benefit everyone.

analogy: you're standing there at the bus stop, minding your own business whilst looking at the no-smoking sign, along comes some dickhead, stands beside you, lights up a cigarette, and the smoke starts getting in your face... it's not a nice experience. Now you can either:

a) tolerate and ignore it ( "passive tolerance" )
b) tolerate it but tell him to observe the signs in the future ( "active tolerance" )
c) have a word to the fellow to observe the signs *and* cut it out ( "active intolerance" )
d) you can move so you are not downwind of the smoke ( "passive intolerance" )

(( i made up that passive/active/tolerance/intolerance thing (at least i think i did) so if it's stupid, tell me ))

another analogy: think of a sports stadium, we would assume a sporting stadium was to be used for sports, right? so if some clown comes along and wants to make a church out of it and they go about making this happen, do we tolerate this? we say "no! go build your church in the empty lot down the road" .. but just say this stadium, has a big conference room, and the local churchies want to turn just that room into a church for one day a week.. sure, we can tolerate that much, it's only for Sundays anyway. but the point is that the stadium was there first, so logically, it's up to the new person coming along to adapt to the way things are or to get permission from the current owners, if they don't adapt to how things are or are refused permission, then they can go away, right?

well I guess if they were bigger they could just stomp on you and do what they want anyway, and in this case, I would call this "forced tolerance"


so in the grand scheme of things, we start with a planet - life grows, people eventually arrive .. they walk around, do stuff ... then somebody got the bright idea that their was an invisible entity who made it all

is that logical as to what happened first?

did humans know about god first (belief) or did the *lack* of human speculation about god (non-belief) happen first?...

how can it be anything but non-belief coming first?

oh i hear you - you're saying that back then humans weren't smart enough to think of the concept of god, oh wait... you aren't saying that we became "human" the moment we thought up god, are you? are you saying that we are not human, unless we embrace god? your god?

that's the message I get from the religious who want everyone to convert to their way ... why is their way better? why must they insist on me being religious as well?

and fuck you if you're going to say that "I just need to read the bible" .. let me save you that conversation with me

nut: You need to believe in Jesus
me: Why?
nut: So you can be saved
me: Saved from what?
nut: From hell!
me: oh? so how do I believe in Jesus?
nut: you need to read the bible
me: but I did read the bible, that's *why* I'm a non-believer
nut: oh!! you just need to believe in Jesus when you read the bible..
me: wait... uhmmm.. so in order to believe in Jesus, I need to read the bible, but I have to believe in Jesus when I read the bible?
nut: YES!

*face*palms* and that's the simplified version

and i'm serious, these people are out there on the 'net as I've had that sort of conversation several times - i suspect most of the religious don't actually get into this conversation in the first place - because the religious majority are slightly less blinded by Jesus Christ why don't you come save my life now, open my eyes blind me with your light now.


when someone talks about a religious "truth" that isn't verifiable, they are speaking bullshit, plain and simple.

this bullshit may make them feel warm and fuzzy, but this is clearly NOT tolerance, because if they want me to convert, then they are being INTOLERANT because if they were actually being tolerant they would TOLERATE me not being a religious person ....

and i don't give a flying fuck if people care what happens to my eternal soul - I don't know these people who say these scary things like this and they don't know me, how do I know that they are sincere and not speaking bullshit? conversely, how do they know I am worthy of this salvation anyway? - and if my eternal soul is as important a thing as the religious make it out to be, then I'm not going to base any decision regarding my eternal soul by listening to some fucking crackpot who is speaking utter bullshit.

I'm not going to tolerate bullshit and then be expected to base my view of the after life on said bullshit.

These people may think that they mean well, but I'm sure Jesus did not want you to obsess over all of this. It's not healthy at all to believe in such stories as if they are reality, this is no different to these "gamers" who play online twenty hours a day or play old school Dungeons and Dragons for weekends at a time. These nuts are no different to Tolkien obsessed fans who think that the tales of Middle Earth are ancient history and is actually a place that can be visited in New Zealand because that's where the *movie* was filmed. (and yes it's probably not healthy for me to go on this much about religion, and no i don't actually know of any people who think Lord of the Rings is a lost part of the history of the world.)

It's like the imaginations in these people have been tripped or tricked into overdrive and they can't shut them off. Instead of having an imagination that roams the universe, they have an imagination that only dwells on the one thing and when you obsess over the one thing, that fantasy will be very close to being part of your reality. Which reminds of that episode of Buffy where she is in a mental hospital and her Slayer life is a delusion that consumes her so much she doesn't realise she's in a mental hospital and the episode is about her brief return to reality.

When people speak bullshit like they are speaking out from the depths of their delusional state of mind as if their fantasies are fact, of course i'm intolerant, because bullshitters wanting me to believe their bullshit SCREAMS to me that whatever it is they are on about is not to be believed, and that doesn't just apply to religion, that applies to everything in life.

No I don't want to change long distance carriers, No I don't want to subscribe to the "new watchoomacallit widgets" ... keep going on about it and i'll take an active part in denying it ... or in the case of a nuisance companies calling me up repeatedly, they get reported to the authorities for being a nuisance.

So why can't I contact the christian church and get them to tell all the christians to fuck off and leave me the fuck alone???? If the religious repeatedly try to convert me to christianity/islam/whatever, should I not have the right to sue the church for harassment? I'm surprised that I've not heard of someone doing that in the USA actually ...


telling me i'm a sinner - INTOLERANCE

telling me I'm going to hell - INTOLERANCE

telling me I need Jesus - is INTOLERANCE

tell me I need Allah - that's INTOLERANCE

tell me to read the bible/koran - that's INTOLERANCE too

telling me that god loves me - more INTOLERANCE, and you might as well tell me that a pile of shit loves me, and in that case, at least shit is real

telling me anything about your religion - especially when it's not the topic of conversation - is INTOLERANCE

not answering questions about your religion - INTOLERANCE

not answering questions HONESTLY about your religion - more INTOLERANCE

trying to convert me to your bullshit - extreme INTOLERANCE

speaking bullshit and then claiming that bullshit as an answer to a question INTOLERANCE

and this is SIMPLY because I believe in NONE of that shit, because it is ALL BULLSHIT as none of it is verifiable.

If Jesus was such a big wig, then why isn't Jesus plastered all over the history books? and don't tell me about Josephus or whatever his name was, from what I understand of "Josephus" - what he said about "Jesus" amounts to a paragraph or two. That's hardly an independent verification of the Jesus character we know. and yes it's likely Jesus did exist, but whether he is anything like the tales told is another completely different matter.

but what about the opposite, the scientific point of view? (my opposite POV to religion is reason, logic and science) What about when I talk about the moons of Saturn, or stellar nucleosynthesis, am I being intolerant by speaking about things that other people don't "believe" in? Well if these other people have better ideas or more accurate information than me, then I want to hear what they have to say, which would seem to me to be *tolerance*.

The scientific point of view is always open to change, so by it's own definition, the scientific point of view is tolerant as it is open to change, with new concepts, refinements of old ones. more so, if someone can show science is wrong, then they are welcome to "bring it on" if you will.

Knowing you are wrong is just as big a deal as knowing you are right when it comes to science. IF you know something is wrong, you don't try that option again, so it's a good thing to keep your failures on record with science to stop you wasting time on that failed option in the future.

But religion, it's *all* stories, stories which are not supposed to change and things that will not change are INTOLERANT, if they do not change or adapt, how can they be tolerant? Fuck! even a rock will wear away after thousands of years...

any assumption about the complete fantasy that is religion, is being INTOLERANT .. because the ultra-religious assume that the bullshit that they speak is fact, *AND* they expect everyone else to observe their bullshit as fact as well.. Moses is no fact, Allah is no fact. god is no fact, Gabriel, Uriel, Lucifer... none of these things are facts.

Stories change, even recent events may not be reported accurately, I've seen plenty of bullshit on Fox News, no doubt the masses suck all that bullshit up like a sponge ... and these dumb arses are proud of their intolerance, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that they are oblivious of their intolerance.

oh but religion does good things ...

religion had *BETTER* fucking do "good things" - but there is still an imbalance in the ledger because of the THOUSAND YEARS of intellectual vacuum ... the balance is sorely in favour of the religious making it up to the rest of us for all of their bullshit throughout history, at least for another thousand years...

so the tolerance ledger, would seem to be in favour of the non-believers.

it's everyone's obligation to stop the spread of bullshit - and that's not just applicable to religion - global warming - communism - evolution - outer space - socialism - health care - I've heard lots of bullshit from people who think that they are "experts" because they read one article or they hahahahah fucking saw it on Faux News...


just say a child starts speaking rubbish, perhaps the kid is saying that panda bears are from Antarctica - you do not stand there and let the child speak bullshit do you?? - "uhmmm no little Billy, panda bears are actually from mountainous regions of Tibet and China" .. if the child keeps talking about utter rubbish, you ask the kid where they go to get their stupid ideas from... and then you tell this person to stop filling this kid's head with bullshit or if it's their kid, you can feel free to laugh at the parent as they don't give a shit about their kid's future if they teach them bullshit.

by *not* ridiculing them, you *encourage* their stupidity... inaction breeds stupidity

Without trying to belittle the circumstances of homeless people, I often wonder if the homeless people I see are these dumbarses who won't accept reality, speaking bullshit doesn't put food on your table. speaking bullshit and believing it doesn't get you pass grades in school, you want to be serving fries with that for the rest of your life? do you want to end up on the street, unskilled? untrained? scrounging and begging passers-by for change? is that what you want? the world is getting smarter, being a lazy piece of dumbarse shit *will* see you out in the street - COUNT ON IT - although that is no exclusive prerequisite for being out on the street by any means...

giving believers and their bullshit a wide berth retards the intellectual development of the entire human population, because dumbarses tend to breed and pass on their idiocy to the rest of their blood line. Accurate knowledge takes hard work and effort, spouting your mouth off speaking gibberish is EASY, and bullshit should not be tolerated,


Eventually this religious majority will be the people who will be dragging the chain - they will be the unskilled masses of people *demanding* cheaper health care for everyone - and when all those crops fail because of global warming (yes it *is* going to happen) - it will be these bastards who will demand that we - the scientists - save their collective arses by providing cheaper electricity - atmospheric moisture extractors because it never quite rains, think of the Earth ending up like Tatooine ...

i leave it to you how to deal with the idiots... you don't have to not be nice about it.... humour helps.... double negatives too ... and if you are religious and you managed to read all of that... ^_^

16th Dec 2009

No comments:

Post a Comment

Questions? Comments?

the religious should not read these blogs, they *will* be offended

these are my rantings about religion - i speak fluent sarcasm - know this when you are reading and it will save you some heartache.